Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 4 · Question 9

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Fitness experts - Exercise is the most effective way to get fit
Studies - Cereal eating is correlated with more exercise
Ad's conclusion - Eating cereal will make you physically fit!

Answer Anticipation:
There are two elements of this stimulus that suggest three flaws!

First, the Ad relies on the opinion of fitness experts. However, these experts are speaking to their area of expertise—how one can get physically fit. So this argument doesn't feature an inappropriate appeal to experts.

Second, there are studies. Studies frequently have sampling flaws, and correlation/causation flaws. Here, the sample isn't stated, so there's no reason to believe there's a sampling flaw. However, the study does highlight a correlation (people who do X more regularly do Y) between eating cereal and exercising. From that, it concludes that eating cereal will cause you to get "on the most effective path" to fitness—i.e., exercise.

So the argument treats a correlation between eating cereal and exercise as establishing that the former causes the latter. Let's find that correlation/causation flaw in the answers!

Answer Explanation:
The study showed a correlation between cereal and exercise, and the conclusion jumped to a causal statement about that connection.

Key Takeaway:
When experts are mentioned, consider whether they're speaking to their area of expertise. They frequently are, but when they're not, it's an inappropriate appeal to authority flaw.

Incorrect. Nutrition is out of the scope of the argument. When the conclusion talks about the most effective path to fitness, it's calling back to the experts describing exercise using that language—not diet.

Incorrect. The argument never establishes that a factor contributes to a result—that would be a causal premise, and there is only a correlation in the premises.

Incorrect. The size of the sample in the studies isn't mentioned, so there's no way to know if it was too small.

Incorrect. There's no characteristic mentioned of a group as a whole, so there's no whole to part flaw here.