Recent studies indicate a correlation between damage to human chromosome number six and adult schizophrenia. We know, however, that there are people without damage to this chromosome who develop adult schizophrenia and that some people with damage to chromosome number six do not develop adult schizophrenia. So there is no causal connection between damage to human chromosome number six and adult schizophrenia.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that there is no causal connection between damage to chromosome six and adult schizophrenia. He supports this by pointing out that some people with schizophrenia don't have damage to chromosome six, and some people with chromosome six damage don't develop schizophrenia.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author cites studies that establish a correlation between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia and then concludes that the two aren’t causally connected. But just because there are some exceptions to the correlation doesn’t prove that there is no causal connection between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia at all.

For example, there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, but some smokers never get lung cancer while some non-smokers do get lung cancer.

A
The argument ignores the possibility that some but not all types of damage to chromosome number six lead to schizophrenia.

The author overlooks the possibility that not all kinds of damage to chromosome six cause schizophrenia. If some types of damage do lead to schizophrenia, then there could still be a causal connection between the two, even if they aren't always linked.

B
The argument presumes, without providing evidence, that schizophrenia is caused solely by chromosomal damage.

The argument actually assumes that schizophrenia is not caused by damage to chromosome six, simply because the two are not perfectly correlated.

C
The argument makes a generalization based on an unrepresentative sample population.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using unrepresentative samples. However, we have no reason to believe that the recent studies or the author’s argument are based on unrepresentative samples of people with chromosome 6 damage or schizophrenia.

D
The argument mistakes a cause for an effect.

The author doesn’t mistake a cause for an effect. Instead, he assumes that there is no causal connection between chromosome six damage and schizophrenia at all.

E
The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that correlation implies causation.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation implies causation. But the author concludes that there’s no causal connection at all. Instead of (E), he assumes, without providing warrant, that an imperfect correlation implies a lack of causation.


47 comments

Many vaccines create immunity to viral diseases by introducing a certain portion of the disease-causing virus’s outer coating into the body. Exposure to that part of a virus is as effective as exposure to the whole virus in stimulating production of antibodies that will subsequently recognize and kill the whole virus. To create a successful vaccine of this type, doctors must first isolate in the disease-causing virus a portion that stimulates antibody production. Now that a suitable portion of the virus that causes hepatitis E has been isolated, doctors claim they can produce a vaccine that will produce permanent immunity to that disease.

Summarize Argument
Doctors claim that they can create a vaccine providing permanent immunity to hepatitis E. This is because a suitable portion of the virus behind hepatitis E has been isolated, which is necessary for creating a vaccine.

Notable Assumptions
The doctors assume that isolating the virus behind hepatitis E is sufficient for creating a vaccine providing permanent immunity to the disease. This means the doctors don’t believe other relevant factors will pose significant challenges towards creating the vaccine, and that any given vaccine can actually provide “permanent immunity.”

A
Most of the people who contract hepatitis E are young adults who were probably exposed to the virus in childhood also.
People who contract hepatitis E have already been exposed to the virus, which means they should’ve gained the benefits the vaccine would provide. They evidently haven’t gained that benefit, which suggests the vaccine is unlikely to provide “permanent immunity.”
B
Some laboratory animals exposed to one strain of the hepatitis virus developed immunity to all strains of the virus.
The doctors never make claims about different strains of hepatitis.
C
Researchers developed a successful vaccine for another strain of hepatitis, hepatitis B, after first isolating the virus that causes it.
Hepatitis vaccines can indeed be developed from isolated viruses. If anything, this supports the doctors’ claim.
D
The virus that causes hepatitis E is very common in some areas, so the number of people exposed to that virus is likely to be quite high in those areas.
We don’t care how widespread the virus is. We only care whether a vaccine can be produced from the isolated virus.
E
Many children who are exposed to viruses that cause childhood diseases such as chicken pox never develop those diseases.
Since vaccines are just exposure to viruses, all this tells us is that vaccines seem to work.

22 comments

Pat: E-mail fosters anonymity, which removes barriers to self-revelation. This promotes a degree of intimacy with strangers that would otherwise take years of direct personal contact to attain.

Amar: Frankness is not intimacy. Intimacy requires a real social bond, and social bonds cannot be formed without direct personal contact.

Speaker 1 Summary
Pat argues towards the unstated conclusion that e-mail promotes intimacy with strangers. How so? E-mail allows anonymity. Anonymity removes barriers to self-revelation, and removing those barriers promotes intimacy. Chaining that together, we can infer that e-mail promotes intimacy.

Speaker 2 Summary
Amar claims that e-mail does not promote intimacy (although this conclusion is also unstated). In support, Amar says that a real social bond is necessary for intimacy, and in turn, direct personal contact is necessary for real social bonds. Since e-mail doesn’t include direct personal contact, we can infer that e-mail cannot foster intimacy.

Objective
We want to find a point of disagreement. Pat and Amar disagree about whether e-mail can lead to intimacy with strangers.

A
barriers to self-revelation hinder the initial growth of intimacy
Neither speaker makes this claim. Pat is the only speaker who talks about barriers to self-revelation, but it’s just to say that removing those barriers speeds up intimacy. Amar never discusses these barriers at all.
B
E-mail can increase intimacy between friends
Neither speaker talks about the effect of e-mail on intimacy between established friends. The conversation is just about whether e-mail can build intimacy between strangers.
C
intimacy between those who communicate with each other solely by e-mail is possible
Pat agrees with this, but Amar disagrees: this is the point of disagreement. Pat’s argument supports the conclusion that e-mail promotes intimacy between strangers, but Amar’s implied conclusion is that email cannot create intimacy due to a lack of direct personal contact.
D
real social bonds always lead to intimacy
Neither speaker makes this claim. Amar is the only speaker who talks about real social bonds, but the claim Amar makes is that real social bonds are necessary for intimacy, not that they’re sufficient.
E
the use of e-mail removes barriers to self-revelation
Pat agrees with this, but Amar doesn’t state an opinion. Amar doesn’t discuss barriers to self-revelation at all, so cannot be said to agree or disagree with this claim.

2 comments

The sun emits two types of ultraviolet radiation that damage skin: UV-A, which causes premature wrinkles, and UV-B, which causes sunburn. Until about ten years ago, sunscreens protected against UV-B radiation but not against UV-A radiation.

Summary
According to the stimulus, sunlight contains both UV-A and UV-B radiation. UV-A causes wrinkles, and UV-B causes sunburn. Until about 10 years ago, sunscreen blocked UV-B, but did not block UV-A.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
These facts support the inference that before 10 years ago, sunscreen did protect against sunburn, but it did not protect against wrinkles.

A
Since about ten years ago, the percentage of people who wear sunscreen every time they spend time in the sun has increased.
This is not supported. The stimulus never mentions the percentage of people who wear sunscreen, so we can’t know if it has increased or not.
B
Most people whose skin is prematurely wrinkled have spent a large amount of time in the sun without wearing sunscreen.
This is not supported. The stimulus tells us that sun exposure is one cause of premature wrinkles, but we don’t know if it’s the predominant cause. Also, until at least 10 years ago, sunscreen didn’t even make a difference to wrinkling.
C
The specific cause of premature skin wrinkling was not known until about ten years ago.
This is not supported. Just because sunscreen didn’t protect against UV-A radiation until 10 years ago, that doesn’t mean the connection between UV-A and wrinkles was unknown. Maybe it just took a long time to develop effective UV-A blocking sunscreen.
D
People who wear sunscreen now are less likely to become sunburned than were people who spent the same amount of time in the sun wearing sunscreen ten years ago.
This is not supported. Based on the stimulus, sunscreen 10 years ago did protect against the UV-B rays that cause sunburn, so there’s no reason to believe that modern sunscreen provides more protection against sunburn.
E
Until about ten years ago, people who wore sunscreen were no less likely to have premature wrinkles than were people who spent the same amount of time in the sun without wearing sunscreen.
This is strongly supported. The stimulus says that before 10 years ago, sunscreen didn’t protect against UV-A rays, which cause wrinkles. That means that wearing sunscreen could not have lowered anyone’s chance of wrinkling prematurely.

1 comment

Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that every general rule has at least one exception.

Frank: What you conclude is itself a general rule. If we assume that it is true, then there is at least one general rule that has no exceptions. Therefore, you must withdraw your conclusion.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Frank concludes that Lance is wrong to claim that “every general rule has at least one exception.” This is because, according to Lance’s claim, Lance’s own general rule would need to have an exception. In other words, if Lance’s claim is true then not every general rule has at least one exception, in which case Lance’s claim cannot be true.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Frank counters Lance’s claim by pointing out that it is self-contradictory and cannot be logically true. As Frank points out, Lance’s general rule that “every general rule has at least one exception” entails that this rule itself must have at least one exception. If Lance’s rule has an exception, then logically, there must be some general rule with no exception, which would make Lance’s rule false.

A
demonstrating that Lance assumes the very thing he sets out to prove
Frank doesn’t demonstrate that Lance assumes the point that he is trying to prove. Instead, Frank demonstrates that Lance’s point is self-contradictory and therefore invalid.
B
showing that Lance’s conclusion involves him in a contradiction
Frank shows that Lance’s conclusion is self-contradictory, because in following the chain of inferences from Lance’s rule, one must end up breaking that rule.
C
showing that no general rule can have exceptions
Frank doesn’t claim that no general rule can have exceptions, only that Lance’s assertion that every general rule must have an exception is invalid.
D
establishing that experience teaches us the opposite of what Lance concludes
Frank doesn’t claim that the opposite of Lance’s conclusion is true, only that Lance’s conclusion is invalid. Frank also never talks about what experience teaches us.
E
showing that it has no implications for any real cases
Frank doesn’t bring up real cases in his argument. He only shows that Lance’s conclusion is logically contradictory.

5 comments