A careful review of hospital fatalities

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct68% picked this

   the evidence cited to show that one factor led to a certain result is not sufficient to show that a second factor will

   Why this is right

   This describes the flaw exactly. The "one factor" is anesthetist training, which the evidence shows led to past safety improvements. The "second factor" is monitoring equipment. The argument leaps from "training led to safety improvements" to "monitoring will not also lead to safety improvements." But evidence about one factor's effectiveness does not prove a different factor cannot also be effective. Two contributors to the same outcome can coexist. This is the gap.

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

   68%
2. B

   Circular Reasoning2% picked this

   the reasons given in support of the conclusion presuppose the truth

   "Reasons given in support of the conclusion presuppose the truth of that conclusion" is the textbook definition of circular reasoning. This argument is not circular — its premises (review of past fatalities, monitoring's past unavailability) are independent of its conclusion (monitoring will not help in the future). The conclusion follows badly from the premises, but the premises do not assume the conclusion.

   2%
3. C

   Causal Flaw24% picked this

   the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent when a certain result occurred does not show that the absence

   This describes a different flaw — concluding that the absence of a factor caused a result, just because the factor was absent when the result occurred. The argument does not say monitoring's absence caused safety improvements. It says training (which was present) caused them, and uses monitoring's absence only to set up the inference that monitoring is not what drove gains. The flaw described here is not the flaw the argument actually commits.

   24%
4. D

   Bad Description3% picked this

   the evidence cited in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other information

   The argument's premises are not inconsistent with each other. The two key premises — that training drove past safety gains, and that monitoring was largely unavailable during that period — fit together coherently. There is no internal contradiction in the evidence. This answer mischaracterizes the argument.

   3%
5. E

   Causal Flaw3% picked this

   the reason indicated for the claim that one event caused a second more strongly supports the claim that both events were independent

   This describes a "common cause" or "third-factor" flaw — claiming that the evidence cited for "A caused B" actually better supports "A and B were both caused by C." The argument does not have this structure. The author does not need to defend a particular cause-and-effect pair against a third-cause alternative; the author is making a different (and faulty) inference about future effects of a different factor. This answer's flaw is not the argument's flaw.

   3%