Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 14

Incorrect. The flaw described by this answer is one of degree—jumping from a premise about a causal factor to a conclusion treating it as the sole cause. However, the stimulus jumped from a correlation to a causal conclusion—a different causal flaw.

Incorrect. While there is a sampling flaw, it's not that the group studied is unrepresentative—1,000 adults can be used to draw a conclusion about the population as a whole. Instead, the issue is that the sample wasn't randomly assigned between the relevant groups.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
In a study, chocolate consumption was correlated with depression, so chocolate causes depression.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a study done with a causal conclusion, so we should think about sampling and correlation/causation flaws.

Is there a sampling flaw? Yep. The argument monitored chocolate consumption and depression, but it didn't randomly assign people to the high-consumption and low-consumption groups. As such, the chocolate/depressed group could be different—they could naturally be more depressed. Which hints at the correlation/causation flaw . . .

Since this argument jumps from a correlation between chocolate consumption and depression to a conclusion that chocolate causes depression, the argument also commits a correlation/causation flaw. It's possible that depression causes chocolate consumption, or there's another cause of both chocolate consumption and depression.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump between the correlation between chocolate consumption and depression to a causal conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Studies have three errors in reasoning commonly associated with them—sampling (common); correlation/causation (common); percent and amount (less common). When you see a study, start by looking for those three errors in reasoning.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of sufficient/necessary conditions, so this answer describing a conditional logic flaw (illegal reversal) is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is clearly worded—there's no vague language there.