Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumCorrelation vs. Causation

Archaeologist: A recent excavation of ancient Tarsian settlements revealed a striking pattern: households containing decorative obsidian blades are almost always surrounded by heavily fortified walls, whereas households without such blades lack these walls. Since decorative obsidian was highly prized and difficult to acquire, it is clear that families who obtained these valuable items subsequently built fortified walls to protect them from theft.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the archaeologist's reasoning?

  1. A
    confuses a condition that is sufficient to prompt the construction of fortified walls with a condition that is logically necessary to do so
  2. overlooks the possibility that a third factor, such as significant household wealth, was independently responsible for both the acquisition of the obsidian blades and the construction of the wallsAnswer
  3. C
    takes for granted that fortified walls were the only effective means of protecting valuable items from theft in ancient Tarsian settlements
  4. D
    infers that because a structural feature is present in specific individual households, it must have been a characteristic of the settlement as a whole
  5. E
    incorrectly equates the proportion of households containing decorative obsidian with the absolute number of fortified walls in the settlement

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument overlooks the possibility that a third factor, such as household wealth, was responsible for both phenomena.
The argument observes a correlation between two phenomena (possessing obsidian blades and having fortified walls) and assumes a direct causal relationship (the blades caused the walls to be built). However, it ignores the highly plausible alternative that a third variable—such as wealth or social status—allowed families to afford both the expensive blades and the massive walls. The correct answer accurately identifies this classic correlation-to-causation error.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises.
Premise 1: Households with obsidian blades have fortified walls; those without blades do not. Premise 2: Obsidian was prized and hard to acquire.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to evaluating its logical validity.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
Conclusion: Obtaining obsidian blades caused the families to build fortified walls to protect them.
You must pinpoint exactly what the author is trying to prove to find the flaw in how they got there.
3
Analyze the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The author takes an observed correlation (blades and walls appear together) and infers a specific causal relationship (blades caused walls).
Recognizing the transition from correlation to causation reveals potential logical gaps.
4
Evaluate the causal conclusion for alternative explanations.
The correlation could exist because a third factor, like immense wealth or high social status, provided the resources to both acquire the expensive blades and build the massive walls.
A valid causal argument must account for or eliminate alternative causal explanations, especially common third variables.
5
Select the option that describes this specific vulnerability.
The option addressing a 'third factor' matches the anticipated alternative explanation.
This directly answers the prompt's request to identify the flaw in the reasoning.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic