Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumLogical Arguments and Causal Relationships

A telecommunications provider observed a 25% drop in subscriber churn in service areas where it concurrently upgraded its cell tower network to 5G and introduced a free device-protection plan for long-term contract holders. Company executives concluded that the speed improvements from the 5G upgrades were directly responsible for the reduction in subscriber churn. Which of the following statements, if true, provide valid logical evaluations that weaken the executives' causal conclusion? (Select all that apply.)

  1. In service areas where the 5G tower upgrades were completed but the free device-protection plan was not offered, subscriber churn rates remained unchanged.Answer
  2. Subscribers in control markets who received the free device-protection plan without any 5G network upgrades experienced a comparable 25% drop in churn.Answer
  3. C
    The 25% drop in subscriber churn rate directly prompted company executives to initiate the 5G cell tower upgrades across all service areas.
  4. D
    Company executives evaluated only the single 25% churn metric without cross-referencing customer satisfaction survey metrics from other internal reporting sources.
  5. E
    While 5G tower upgrades and device-protection plans each independently increase customer retention, implementing both simultaneously exceeds departmental budget limits.

Answer

The two statements that weaken the executives' conclusion are the one showing that 5G upgrades alone caused no change in churn in areas without device protection, and the one showing that device protection alone produced an identical 25% drop in churn without 5G upgrades.
To weaken a causal claim derived from two simultaneous interventions, a valid response must isolate the variables. The statement establishing that churn remained unchanged when 5G upgrades were implemented without device protection proves that 5G speed improvements alone were not sufficient to reduce churn. Similarly, the statement demonstrating an identical 25% churn drop in markets receiving only device protection provides a strong alternative explanation for the outcome. Together, these two statements logically dismantle the executives' conclusion that 5G upgrades were the cause.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the causal argument and premise structure in the stem.
Premise: Two simultaneous changes occurred (5G upgrades and free device protection) alongside a 25% drop in churn. Conclusion: 5G upgrades directly caused the drop.
Evaluating a causal claim requires identifying whether conflated variables or alternative explanations exist.
2
Evaluate statements that test for confounding variables or variable isolation.
The statement showing no churn change in 5G-only areas isolates 5G and shows it is insufficient on its own. The statement showing a 25% churn drop in protection-only areas presents a viable alternative cause.
Showing that the supposed cause fails to produce the effect when isolated, or that the effect occurs without the supposed cause, invalidates a claim of exclusive causality.
3
Filter out irrelevant statements or logical fallacies.
Statements reversing causal direction, mentioning single-source tunnel vision, or discussing budget constraints do not logically weaken the causal relationship.
Only empirical or logical counter-evidence regarding the stated variables can effectively weaken a causal conclusion.

Key Concept

Evaluating Causal Arguments and Confounding Variables in Two-Part Scenarios
Rate this question

Topics

Logical Arguments and Causal Relationships

More questions from this topic