Psychiatrist: While the first appearance

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   treats the cause of the occurrence of a type of phenomenon as an effect of

   This answer is shorthand for an author thinking X causes Y, when in reality Y causes X (also known as Reverse Causality). But the author doesn't conclude that one thing causes another. She concludes that one thing doesn't cause another. She doesn't think trauma or phobia are cause or effect of each other.

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong: can't be established2% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that some psychological events have no causes that can be established

   Since this begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether what follows is a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that "some mental events have no causes that can be established by science"? No. The author doesn't need some "crimes" to be unsolvable. It doesn't hurt the author's argument if all psychological events have causes that can be established by science. The argument is merely saying that "traumatizing events" are never a cause of phobias. She doesn't have to believe that the cause of phobias can never be established by science.

   2%
3. C

   Not Circular6% picked this

   builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for

   This refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, which is when the premise restates the conclusion or requires it to be true. This answer is almost never right. The two premises do not repeat the conclusion. Only the conclusion has any causal wording ("contribute").

   6%
4. D

   Correct75% picked this

   takes for granted that a type of phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if phenomena of these

   Why this is right

   Since this begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether what follows is a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that "X contributes to Y only if X and Y are invariably associated"? Since this is conditional, (only if), we mainly want to ask ourselves, "Did the author make this reasoning move? We may have to contrapose in order to recognize it". The contrapositive of this is saying: X and Y are not ? X does not invariably associated contribute to Y The fact that the right side matches the wording of the conclusion makes this very attractive. The author was trying to conclude that trauma does not contribute to phobia. Was the evidence saying that "trauma" and "phobia" are not invariably associated? Yes. An invariable association means that whenever a trauma is present, a phobia is present. Whenever a trauma is absent, a phobia is absent. And the evidence established that this is not the case. Sometimes trauma is present and phobia is absent. Sometimes trauma is absent and phobia is present.

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

   75%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   derives a causal connection from mere association when there is no independent evidence

   This answer is shorthand for an author thinking that a correlation between X and Y indicates that X causes Y. But the author doesn't conclude/derive that one thing causes another. She concludes that one thing doesn't cause another.

   12%