Records from 1850 to 1900

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct50% picked this

   inferring from a claimed correlation between two phenomena that two other phenomena are causally connected

   Why this is right

   When answers say "inferring from Y that X", the Y would be the Evidence and the thing inferred, X, would be the Conclusion. So, was the Evidence a "claimed correlation between two phenomena"? Yes. The evidence claimed a correlation between birth weight and success of crops. Does the conclusion say that two other phenomena are causally connected? Yes. It says that health of a newborn depends strongly on food available to mother. In a weird way, noticing those language shifts from Evidence to Conclusion (i.e. going from talking about "birth weight" to "health of a newborn", or from "success of crops" to "food available to mom") is helping us to understand in this answer choice why it says two other phenomena. If we can match it up, it's correct. And we can match this up.

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

   50%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match19% picked this

   inferring from the claim that two phenomena have fluctuated together that one of those phenomena must be the

   We can match this Premise half of this answer up with the Evidence, since "the more successful the crops, the higher the birth weights" is claiming that two phenomena have fluctuated together. But that would mean, according to this answer choice, that our conclusion said, "Therefore, birth weight is caused solely by the success of crops". Not only did the conclusion actually introduce different concepts, not the same two phenomena from the evidence, it also hedges its wording and says "X depends to a large extent on Y", not "Y is the sole cause of X".

   19%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match11% picked this

   inferring from records concerning a past correlation between two phenomena that that

   We can latch on to the Premise half of this answer choice; there were records concerning a past correlation between "birth weight" and "crop success". But then, according to this answer choice, the conclusion should have sounded like, "This indicates that birth weight and crop success are still associated with each other". That's not a good match for our actual conclusion, which is making a causal (not correlative) claim, and which is talking about things beyond "birth weight" and "crop success".

   11%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   inferring from records concerning two phenomena the existence of a common cause of the phenomena and then presenting a

   The evidence definitely had records concerning two phenomena: birth weight / crop success. Does the conclusion say that there is some thing that is causing both birth weight and crop success? No. So we can eliminate from here. Bizarrely, this answer choice goes on to describe yet another Conclusion. This answer acts like the argument had a Premise -> Intermediate Conclusion -> Main Conclusion structure, which it didn't.

   12%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match7% picked this

   inferring the existence of one causal connection from that of another and then providing an explanation for the existence

   If an answer says that we "infer X from Y", then the thing being inferred, X, is a Conclusion and Y is its Evidence. Did we conclude a causal connection? Yes. We concluded that "newborn's health is causally connected to amount of food available to mom during pregnancy". Did the evidence give us another causal connection? No. It just gave us a correlation. Two things "varied" with each other. This is enough to eliminate this answer, but it also goes on to act like there's yet another conclusion, one that says "Here is why X and Y are causally connected and why A and B are causally connected."

   7%