A survey was recently conducted among ferry passengers on the North Sea.
Conclusion (it is clear, then)
People would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medications.
Evidence
A survey was conducted among ferry passengers on the North Sea.
More of those who had taken anti-seasickness medication reported symptoms of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication.
Evaluate
This argument revolves around a Curious Fact, as it presents a surprising piece of statistical evidence and makes an implication about causality. There’s a correlation suggested between taking medication and reporting seasickness symptoms. The author concludes that it's better not to take the medication, implying that the medication might cause seasickness.
Curious Fact
Why did more people who took the medication report seasickness symptoms?
Author's Explanation
The anti-seasickness medication actually caused seasickness (that's why people would be "better off" not taking it).
To weaken this argument, we should consider Alternate Explanations for the curious fact or look for facts that undermine the Plausibility of the idea that the anti-seasickness meds actually cause seasickness.
Whenever the author takes a correlation between X and Y and assumes that X causes Y, we consider these two alternate explanations: 1) Reverse Causality (maybe Y caused X) 2) Third Factor (maybe Z is associated with X and Y)
The author is taking a conclusion between anti-seasickness meds and seasickness to mean that the meds caused the seasickness.
Would reverse causality make any sense? Could the seasickness come first, and lead to taking anti-seasickness meds?
Of course! In fact that's such an appealing common sense alternate explanation that we probably don't need to think much harder than that.
Goal
Let's find an answer that suggests that taking the medication actually provides some benefit, despite the survey results, or an alternate explanation for why seasickness and these meds are correlated (such as ).