PT157 S2 Q17 ExplanationThe average tax refund received

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct87% picked this

   People who invest heavily in the stock market generally have higher incomes than people who do not; so if you want to have a

   Why this is right

   This argument mirrors the original's flawed structure exactly. The evidence presents a correlation: people who invest heavily in the stock market generally have higher incomes. The conclusion draws a causal recommendation: if you want a high income, you should invest heavily in the stock market. Just as with the tax preparation argument, the correlation can be explained by a confounding variable -- people with high incomes have more disposable money to invest, rather than investing causing the high income. The causal direction is ambiguous, and the argument ignores the possibility that a third factor (existing wealth) drives both the investing and the high income. The structure is a perfect match: correlation in the evidence, causal prescription in the conclusion, confounding variable unaddressed.

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

   87%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   Establishing an in-house print shop usually enables companies to produce their publications more efficiently. So if your company produces publications, then it

   This argument's evidence uses the phrase "usually enables," which describes a causal relationship, not a mere correlation. The original argument's evidence described a statistical correlation between two groups without establishing any causal mechanism. When evidence already states that one thing "enables" another, recommending that action is not a correlation-to-causation error -- it is a reasonable inference from the stated causal relationship. The flaw structure does not match because the evidence type is fundamentally different.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   Quitting smoking will lower your life insurance premium and will also decrease your risk of lung cancer. So if you want to lower your

   This argument has two structural problems that distinguish it from the original. First, the evidence uses "will lower" and "will also decrease," which assert direct causal relationships rather than mere correlations. The original argument's evidence only described a statistical difference between groups. Second, the conclusion draws a causal link between two effects (lowering insurance premiums and reducing cancer risk), which is an entirely different reasoning error from the original. The original concluded that one variable causes another; this argument concludes that two effects of the same cause are causally linked to each other. Neither the evidence type nor the conclusion structure matches.

   3%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match5% picked this

   People with larger-than-average estates to manage usually find it helpful to have their own lawyers; so if you have a larger-than-average estate to manage,

   This argument's evidence states that people with large estates "usually find it helpful" to have their own lawyers. This describes a preference or subjective assessment of helpfulness, not a statistical correlation between two independently measurable variables. The original argument compared average refund amounts between two groups -- a quantitative correlation. This answer describes a group's attitude toward a service, which is closer to a causal claim (having a lawyer helps) than to a bare correlation. The evidence structure does not match, so the flaw pattern differs.

   5%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   In deciding who they will call, telemarketers target people who have purchased from telemarketers in the past. So if you do not want to

   This argument's evidence describes a deliberate action by telemarketers: they target people who have purchased from telemarketers before. This is a description of a behavioral strategy, not a statistical correlation between two independently measured variables. The original argument's evidence compared average outcomes across two groups. Additionally, the conclusion's reasoning (do not buy from telemarketers to avoid calls) follows logically from the evidence -- if telemarketers target past buyers, then not buying should reduce calls. There is no correlation-to-causation error here because the evidence establishes an actual decision-making process, not a mere statistical association.

   2%