Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEvaluating Reasoning Flaws

To reduce hospital-acquired infection rates, a major metropolitan medical center instituted mandatory daily copper-alloy surface sanitation in all intensive care units three months ago. Over the subsequent three months, the medical center reported a 40 percent drop in intensive care unit infection rates compared to the preceding three months. The hospital administration concluded that the copper-alloy sanitation protocol was directly responsible for the reduction in infections. The reasoning in the hospital administration's conclusion is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

  1. A
    It fails to establish whether copper-alloy sanitation is cost-effective compared to traditional disinfectant methods across all hospital departments.
  2. B
    It improperly assumes that a sanitation protocol effective in intensive care units will guarantee identical results in non-critical outpatient facilities.
  3. It infers a direct causal relationship between two concurrent events without considering alternative factors that could account for the observed change.Answer
  4. D
    It relies on evidence showing that copper surfaces naturally inhibit bacterial growth to support the claim that sanitation protocols were implemented properly.
  5. E
    It treats the presence of a reported drop in infection rates as conclusive proof that no patients contracted infections from sources outside the hospital.

Answer

The argument is vulnerable because it infers a direct causal relationship between two concurrent events without considering alternative factors that could account for the observed change.
The correct answer identifies the fundamental logical error in the argument: assuming that because the introduction of the copper-alloy sanitation protocol preceded and coincided with a decrease in ICU infection rates, the protocol must have caused the decrease. This ignores plausible alternative explanations, such as coincidental seasonal fluctuations in pathogen prevalence or other simultaneous quality-improvement measures implemented by the hospital.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument into premise and conclusion.
Premise: Daily copper-alloy sanitation was introduced three months ago, and ICU infections dropped by 40% during those three months. Conclusion: The copper-alloy sanitation protocol directly caused the drop in infections.
Identifying the structural components helps isolate the leap in logic from premise to conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument relies on a temporal sequence and correlation (new sanitation introduced → infection rates decreased) to assert a direct causal connection.
Correlated events do not automatically prove causation because unaccounted third variables (e.g., changes in handwashing policy, staff training, seasonal illness changes) could be responsible.
3
Evaluate the choices to find the statement that accurately describes this logical defect.
The statement addressing the inference of a causal relationship without ruling out alternative factors accurately describes the correlation-versus-causation fallacy.
A valid flaw evaluation must address why the premise evidence fails to guarantee the conclusion.

Key Concept

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws: Confusing Correlation with Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws

More questions from this topic