The fact that people who

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct47% picked this

   Having strong verbal skills encourages people to read more, so the fact that habitual readers tend to be verbally skilled does not

   Why this is right

   The "so" tells us that this conclusion is the second half. Is it saying "a correlation between X and Y doesn't prove that X causes Y"? Sure — the correlation between habitual reading and verbal skills doesn't prove that habitual reading causes verbal skills. Is the evidence suggesting the possibility of reverse causality, that verbal skill came first and led to habitual reading? Yes, it's saying that "having strong verbal causes more habitual reading".

   Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   47%
2. B

   Weak Conclusion / Evidence Match4% picked this

   Musical and mathematical skills are often produced by the same talent for perceiving abstract patterns, so the fact that some mathematicians are not skilled

   The "so" tells us that this conclusion is the second half. Is it saying "a correlation between X and Y doesn't prove that X causes Y"? Not quite — it's not a correlation when you say some X's are Y. A correlation is a lumpiness in the data where it's asymmetrically tilted. - people who are X tend to be Y - most X's are Y - people who are X are more likely than those who aren't to be Y So we could stop reading there. But, if we checked the premise, is it pointing out the possibility of Reverse Causality? No, it's pointing out the possibility of Third Factor, that X and Y are both caused by Z (perceiving abstract patterns).

   4%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   Since how people choose to dress often depends on how their friends dress, the fact that a person chooses a style of dress does

   The "since" tells us that the first half is a premise, so the second claim is the conclusion. Is the second half saying "a correlation between X and Y doesn't prove that X causes Y"? Not quite — it's not a correlation. It's saying "The fact that a person chooses a style doesn't prove that _____ ." The conclusion is supposed to be saying "the fact that X and Y are correlated doesn't prove that ____ ." A person choosing a style is a causal relationship, not a correlation. So we don't need to keep reading this one.

   9%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match37% picked this

   The fact that taller children often outperform other children at basketball does not show that height is a decisive advantage in basketball, for taller

   The "for" tells us that the second half is a premise, so the first claim is the conclusion. Is the first half saying "a correlation between X and Y doesn't prove that X causes Y"? Not quite. It's saying "the fact that tallness often is correlated with outperforming doesn't prove tallness is a decisive advantage". That's a weird match for "doesn't prove that the tallness is causing the outperforming". More distinctly, the evidence is third factor (more time practicing bball), not reverse cause (playing better makes them taller).

   37%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   The fact that two diseases have similar symptoms does not establish that they have the same underlying cause, for dissimilar

   The "for" tells us that the second half is a premise, so the first claim is the conclusion. Is the first half saying "a correlation between X and Y doesn't prove that X causes Y"? No. It's saying that "having similar symptoms doesn't prove it's the same underlying cause". In other words, "just because X and Y are similar, doesn't mean they're both caused by Z". That's too poor a match for our original conclusion to keep considering this one.

   3%