Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 1 · Question 2

Incorrect. There's no conditional language in the stimulus, so there's no reversal as this answer suggests.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't moral—it's about a causal relationship that could be formed. If there were statements about things being wrong, unethical, bad, or there was a discussion of what "should" be done, then this answer would be in play.

Incorrect. The study includes a single comparison, so it would be hard for it to contradict itself.

Incorrect. This argument isn't circular—the conclusion is a general statement of causality, and the premises are the results of a study.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon (Study) Ð Neighborhoods where people lock their doors are also neighborhoods where there are high burglary rates
Explanation/Conclusion Ð Lack of trust in neighbors increases crime

Answer Anticipation:
That's . . . certainly one interpretation of the data!

The argument here relies on a study, and whenever there's a study, we should start by considering a sampling and a correlation/causation flaw.

Here, there's no indication of a sampling flaw. It appears that the study looked at a variety of neighborhoods and compared the rate of door locking to the rate of burglary. Unless the answer brings up a reason to be skeptical of the sample, there's no reason to think there's a sampling flaw here.

However, there absolutely is a correlation/causation jump. The study saw that locking doors was correlated with higher burglary rates. From this, it concludes that the lack of trust in one's neighbors (as highlighted by the locking of doors) "leads to" the crime. That's a giant jump—especially since, in this case, it seems much more likely that the causality is reversed. If there's a lot of burglary in your neighborhood, that's probably going to get you to lock your doors.

Since this argument makes a correlation/causation jump where the reverse causal relationship makes (a lot) more sense, we should look for that answer.

(Note also that this argument has a "proxy" problem—it uses locking of doors as a proxy for trust in neighbors. While the answer could highlight that, it doesn't seem like that much of a jump, and it certainly is less of a jump than the correlation/causation one.)

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the reverse of the concluded causal relationship is possible (we'd argue probable), so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When you see an argument relying on a study, start by considering a sampling flaw and a correlation/causation flaw. You'll find one a good 90+% of the time.