Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Medical Researcher: In a five-year study of ambulatory cardiac patients, individuals who regularly used wearable physiological monitors experienced a 30 percent lower rate of emergency hospital readmissions than those who did not. In addition, patients utilizing these devices reported greater adherence to prescribed exercise regimens. This clearly demonstrates that the routine use of wearable monitors directly causes an improvement in cardiovascular recovery and prevents cardiac relapses.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the medical researcher's reasoning?

  1. A
    treats a factor that is necessary for cardiovascular recovery as though it were sufficient on its own to guarantee that recovery
  2. B
    confuses a claim that provides intermediate evidentiary support regarding exercise adherence with the argument's final conclusion
  3. concludes that an intervention is causally effective solely on the basis of an observed correlation between that intervention and positive health outcomesAnswer
  4. D
    attempts to undermine the study's conclusions by denying the empirical accuracy of the reported readmission rates
  5. E
    presumes without justification that wearable monitors will invariably eliminate the risk of hospital readmission for every patient

Answer

The argument is flawed because it concludes that an intervention is causally effective solely on the basis of an observed correlation between that intervention and positive health outcomes.
The argument infers that wearable physiological monitors directly cause cardiovascular improvement and prevent relapses simply because patients who used them experienced lower readmission rates and higher exercise adherence. This overlooks plausible alternative explanations, such as self-selection bias—patients who willingly adopt and wear health monitors may already be more proactive about diet, medication, and lifestyle, which could be the true cause of their better health outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Patients using wearable monitors had 30% fewer readmissions. Premise 2: These patients reported higher exercise adherence. Conclusion: Using wearable monitors directly causes improved recovery and prevents relapses.
Isolating the structural components reveals the inferential gap between observed evidence and the author's ultimate claim.
2
Evaluate the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises describe a statistical association (correlation) between monitor use and lower readmissions, but the conclusion asserts a direct causal relationship.
Observational correlation does not establish causation because confounding variables (such as conscientious health behavior) could independently explain both monitor usage and better recovery.
3
Match the identified reasoning error to the correct descriptive option.
The statement describing an inference of causal efficacy from an observed correlation precisely characterizes this vulnerability.
A valid flaw answer choice must both accurately describe the argument's content and pinpoint the exact logical defect.

Key Concept

Correlation versus Causation in Flaw Identification
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic