Cereal advertisement: Fitness experts

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct84% picked this

   infers a cause from a mere

   Why this is right

   Does the argument infer a causal relationship? Yes, it claims that eating cereal every day is a path to physical fitness. because it's assuming a causal connection from eating cereal to exercising regularly. Is the evidence a mere correlation? Yes. It just says "people who eat cereal are more likely to exercise regularly". Is there a problem with doing so? Yes. Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean that one is caused by the other. The fact that people who own BMW's are more likely to like fancy wine doesn't mean that owning a BMW caused them to like fancy wine.

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

   84%
2. B

   Not an Assumption1% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that Fantastic Flakes are more nutritious than

   "Nutrition" was never brought up. The argument is endorsing Fantastic Flakes as a healthy choice on the basis of the idea that eating cereal every morning will make you more likely to exercise, not on the basis of nutrition. Since the conclusion claims that Fantastic Flakes would be "the most effective" path, we could say that the author presumes, w/o justification, that Fantastic Flakes are more likely to cause you to exercise than other cereals

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match13% picked this

   infers that a given factor is the sole predictor of a result merely on the grounds that the factor has been shown

   Does the author conclude (or assume) that a certain factor is the sole predictor of a result? No, there's nothing that sounds as extreme as "X is the only influence on Y." We could eliminate there. If we kept reading, then we'd ask did the Evidence say that some factor has been shown to contribute to a result? Also, no. The evidence showed that some factor has been shown to be associated / correlated with some other factor / behavior. Only the conclusion was using causal language (X is the path to Y).

   13%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw0% picked this

   draws a conclusion about all adults from a sample that is too small

   This answer refers to the famous Sampling flaw. This argument was the famous Causal flaw. The conclusion is not about all adults (it sounds like it's about everyone), and the evidence is not a small sample size. It's a statistical connection that "studies have shown".

   0%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   infers that some members of a group have a particular characteristic merely from the fact that the group

   This answer refers to the famous Whole to Part flaw. This argument was the famous Causal flaw. The conclusion is not about "some members of a group having a characteristic".

   2%