Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among people who used computers at their place of employment last year, those who also owned portable (”laptop") computers earned 25 percent more on average than those who did not. It is obvious from this that owning a laptop computer led to a higher-paying job.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that owning a laptop leads to a higher-paying job. As evidence, he cites an economist who found that, among people who used computers at work last year, those who owned laptops earned 25% more on average than those who didn’t.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a positive correlation and jumps to the conclusion that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, he overlooks two key alternatives:

(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe having a higher-paying job allows people to own laptops, not the other way around.

(2) Some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something that causes people to both have higher-paying jobs and own laptops.

A
It attempts to support a sweeping generalization on the basis of information about only a small number of individuals.
The conclusion is a fairly broad generalization. However, we have no idea how big the economist’s sample was and we can’t assume that he only studied “a small number of individuals.”
B
Its conclusion merely restates a claim made earlier in the argument.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where one’s conclusion simply restates a premise. But the author doesn't make this mistake; instead, he confuses correlation for causation.
C
It concludes that one thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing’s having caused the second.
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw. The author concludes that owning a laptop causes people to have a higher-paying job, even though it’s more likely that having a higher-paying job causes people to be able to own a laptop.
D
It offers information as support for a conclusion when that information actually shows that the conclusion is false.
The author’s argument simply doesn’t contradict itself in this way. His evidence may not show that his conclusion is true, but it also doesn’t show that his conclusion is false.
E
It uncritically projects currently existing trends indefinitely into the future.
The author makes a causal conclusion about something that happened last year. He doesn’t make a predictive conclusion about what will happen indefinitely into the future.

66 comments

Mature white pines intercept almost all the sunlight that shines on them. They leave a deep litter that dries readily, and they grow to prodigious height so that, even when there are large gaps in a stand of such trees, little light reaches the forest floor. For this reason white pines cannot regenerate in their own shade. Thus, when in a dense forest a stand of trees consists of nothing but mature white pines, it is a fair bet that _______.

Summary

Mature white pines intercept almost all the sunlight they receive. They leave a deep litter and grow tall enough so that little light reaches the forest floor even with little gaps between trees. White pines cannot regenerate in their own shade.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

In a forest of mature white pines, it is unlikely that any adjacent pines differ widely in age.

A
the ages of the trees in the stand do not differ from each other by much more than the length of time it takes a white pine to grow to maturity

This is strongly supported because we know that mature white pines next to each other leave so little sunlight on the forest floor that white pines cannot regenerate. This would prevent young trees from emerging where pines are already mature.

B
the land on which the stand is now growing had been cleared of all trees at the time when the first of the white pines started growing

This is unsupported because it is not required that all white pines are cleared for new ones to grow. The stimulus only tells us that stands of mature white pines prevent regeneration.

C
competition among the trees in the stand for sunlight will soon result in some trees’ dying and the stand thus becoming thinner

This is unsupported because even though the competition for sunlight may prevent new white pines from growing between mature trees, we have no reason to suspect that already mature trees will compete with each other for sunlight.

D
other species of trees will soon begin to colonize the stand, eventually replacing all of the white pines

This is unsupported because the stimulus provides no information on other trees outcompeting stands of mature white pines.

E
any differences in the heights of the trees in the stand are attributable solely to differences in the ages of the trees

This is unsupported because we don’t know that there aren’t other factors like rain or nutrition that contribute to height differences.


29 comments