Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. The argument concludes that crying reduces emotional stress, it doesn't establish it as true/a premise. So an answer that's conditioned on that being true ("if crying has . . . ") is wrong.

Incorrect. The argument is causal, not conditional, so this illegal reversal answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. If we rephrase this answer to include the language from the stimulus, it would state that, "fails to address the possibility that even if crying reduces stress, reducing stress may lead to crying." But the argument doesn't overlook that possibility because that possibility doesn't undercut the argument—even if the causality flows in both directions, the conclusion could still be correct.

Incorrect. Since the argument doesn't establish causality (it assumes it in the conclusion), there aren't any factors that are definitely jointly responsible for causing a phenomenon.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Tears have certain hormones made during times of stress. Crying gets rid of them. So crying must relieve stress.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument reaches a causal conclusion, you should start by considering a correlation/causation flaw. This conclusion talks about crying having an "effect of reducing," which is causal language, so it's time to check the premises for correlations.

And the premises are correlative! The argument establishes that the human body produces certain hormones in times of stress—that's a correlation. It doesn't state the hormones cause stress, or that the stress causes the body to release these hormones—just that the hormones are produced in times of stress. However, in concluding that removing these hormones will relieve stress, the argument assumes a causal relationship between them.

Since we have a jump from a correlation to causation, we should look for that in the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This argument highlights the correlation/causation flaw. It assumes that because hormones are present in times of stress, that those hormones cause stress, and thus removing them from the body will reduce stress.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument has a causal conclusion, you should immediately consider a correlation/causation flaw. As one of the most common flaws on the test, you're likely to find one! (The exception? When there are causal premises.)