by timmydoeslsat Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:33 pm
The stimulus can be seen as this:
X is caused by Z, not by Y.
Therefore, people with X do not have Y.
This argument is not considering the possibility that one thing may be causing an effect, but that other things can be present without making the cause.
For instance: Jeastman's computer virus is caused by a hacker, not his webmail.
Therefore, Jeastman does not have webmail.
Simply because an item was not responsible for a certain effect does not mean it is absent.
Answer choice C gives us this flawed reasoning as well.
The disorientation of pilots is caused by the disruption in their exposure to daylight, not sleep deprivation.
Therefore, the pilots are not sleep deprived.
We cannot say a factor is absent simply because it is not responsible for a certain effect.
Answer choices:
A) Does not give us the information of X causes Y, Z does not cause Y.
Instead, this is a classic correlaton-causation flaw. Although there is a strong correlation, we cannot conclude cause.
This also does not give us that conclusion of something not being present, rather this simply says that air turbulence is not a cause due to the author attributing cause to another variable since it was strongly correlated to the event.
B) This answer choice would have been our answer had it concluded that stereotyping of most sports fans being beer drinkers does not take place. This answer choice says that one thing caused another, while something else was not the cause. We would want this answer choice to say that "something else" does not exist, but we are not given this.
D) Same issue as B. We would want this conclusion to give us that panic in the face of predicted economic downturns does not exist. It simply concludes with the idea that economic downturns cannot be predicted accurately. Nothing about panic.
E) Same issue as B and D. We would want this answer choice to conclude with the idea that there is not mathematical intelligence with computer programmers.