Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardFlaw in the Reasoning

Public Health Official: Demographic data reveal a strong positive correlation between a municipality's per capita expenditure on public parks and the average self-reported life satisfaction of its residents. Critics of increased park funding argue that this does not prove that parks increase life satisfaction. They posit instead that wealthier municipalities—which inherently feature higher baseline life satisfaction due to economic security—simply have more surplus tax revenue to allocate to parks. However, this critique is flawed. A recent comprehensive analysis demonstrated that even among municipalities with identical median household incomes, those that subsequently increase their park funding see a corresponding rise in aggregate life satisfaction metrics. Therefore, it is evident that increasing expenditure on public parks directly causes an increase in residents' life satisfaction.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the public health official's reasoning?

  1. It concludes that a specific causal relationship exists solely on the grounds that one proposed alternative explanation for a statistical correlation has been discredited.Answer
  2. B
    It fails to consider the possibility that a higher average life satisfaction among residents might cause a municipality to allocate more funding to public parks.
  3. C
    It treats a condition that is sufficient to produce an increase in life satisfaction as a condition that is necessary to achieve that outcome.
  4. D
    It presumes, without providing justification, that an outcome observed at the municipal level must equally apply to every individual resident within that municipality.
  5. E
    It incorrectly assumes that an increase in aggregate life satisfaction metrics indicates a higher absolute number of perfectly satisfied residents.

Answer

The option stating that the argument concludes a causal relationship exists solely because one alternative explanation has been discredited.
The public health official observes a correlation, addresses one specific alternative explanation (wealth), and then concludes the causal claim is definitively proven. This is flawed because ruling out one alternative explanation does not rule out all other potential confounding variables (like community engagement or demographic shifts) that could be causing the increase in life satisfaction.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument.
Premise 1: Correlation between park funding and life satisfaction. Premise 2: Critics suggest a third variable (wealth) causes both. Premise 3: A study controls for wealth and still finds the correlation. Conclusion: Park funding directly causes increased life satisfaction.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to isolate how the premises support the causal conclusion.
2
Identify the logical leap between the premises and the conclusion.
The official successfully rules out 'wealth' as the third variable. However, ruling out one alternative explanation does not rule out all other alternative explanations (e.g., civic engagement, health initiatives, or age demographics).
Finding the gap in reasoning points directly to the logical flaw.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the identified flaw.
The correct option abstractly describes this exact leap: establishing a causal relationship merely because one specific alternate explanation was defeated.
The correct answer in a Flaw question must accurately describe a reasoning error that actually occurs in the stimulus.

Key Concept

Causal Flaws: Overlooking Alternative Explanations
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic