Researchers recently studied the relationship

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match16% picked this

   It improperly infers from the fact that a substance causally contributes to a condition that a reduction in the consumption of the substance

   Whenever we see an answer choice structured, infers from the fact that X that Y Y is the conclusion (the thing being inferred), and X is the evidence (the fact from which we derived our inference). So we ask ourselves whether each part matches. Does the conclusion say that a reduction in the consumption of a substance is likely to eliminate a condition? Close. It says a reduction in the consumption of chocolate is likely to eliminate the condition of worse mood. (It doesn't quite say it will eliminate depression, just improve your mood) But that's close enough that I would consider this part potentially fine and now check the evidence half. DId the evidence say a substance causally contributes to a condition? Nope. It said a substance (chocolate) was correlated with a condition (depression) We have to be able to distinguish between statistical, descriptive correlations most X's are Y ppl who are X are more likely to be Y ppl who are X tend to be Y and actual causal claims X promotes Y X contributes to Y if you want Y, do X

   16%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match Wrong Flaw5% picked this

   It draws a conclusion about the population as a whole on the basis of a sample that is unlikely to

   This describes the famous Sampling flaw. We don't have any reason to complain about this sample: a diverse sample of 1000 people is a robust and seemingly representative sample. Is the conclusion about the population as a whole? Kind of ... it's about the population of adults as a whole. Is the premise a sample that is unlikely to be representative? Nope. It might be unrepresentative for some reason, but it's certainly not likely to be that way, if it's a big sample size and a diverse population.

   5%
3. C

   Correct76% picked this

   It draws a conclusion about a causal relationship between two phenomena from evidence that merely suggests that there is

   Why this is right

   Whenever we see this kind of structure draws a conclusion about X from evidence that merely suggests Y we would proceed to ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and whether Y matches the evidence. Was the conclusion about a causal relationship between two phenomena? Definitely. It posits a causal relationship between chocolate and mood. Was the evidence merely suggesting that there's a correlation between chocolate and mood? Yes. In the study, those who ate chocolate were the most likely to feel depressed. It's descriptively accurate. Is it describing a logical problem? Is it bad to draw a conclusion about a causal relationship on the basis of a mere correlation? It is if you're overconfident with your wording. Had the author said, "by reducing chocolate intake, adults can possibly improve their mood", that's far less problematic. The author's confidence in saying "by eating less chocolate, you can almost certainly improve your mood" is far too confident, given that we don't know yet whether the chocolate was the cause of the depression.

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

   76%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   It confuses a condition that is necessary for establishing the truth of the conclusion with a condition that is sufficient for establishing

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which the author presents a conditional premise and then reaches the conclusion by applying it illegally in a backwards or opposite fashion. Did the premise present a conditional premise? No. Eliminate.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match0% picked this

   Its conclusion is worded too vaguely to evaluate the degree to which the premises support the

   Is this conclusion worded too vaguely? I understand exactly what it's saying. It's predicting that if I eat less chocolate, my mood will improve. I don't think our complaint can be that it's too vague for me to even evaluate this argument. I definitely was able to evaluate the argument.

   0%