Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumCorrelation vs. Causation

An economist notes that companies offering extensive wellness programs to their employees have significantly higher profit margins than companies that do not. Based on this, the economist concludes that implementing wellness programs directly causes an increase in corporate profitability by boosting employee productivity.

Which of the following statements, if true, represent alternative explanations for the observed correlation that weaken the economist's conclusion? (Select all that apply)

  1. Highly profitable companies are more likely to possess the surplus financial resources necessary to fund comprehensive employee wellness programs.Answer
  2. Companies in high-margin technology sectors frequently offer wellness programs as a standard industry benefit to attract scarce talent.Answer
  3. Companies that provide wellness programs also tend to mandate longer working hours, which independently drives up corporate revenues and profit margins.Answer
  4. D
    Employees who participate in wellness programs report higher job satisfaction, which is strongly correlated with increased individual productivity.
  5. E
    The absolute number of employees working for companies without wellness programs is significantly greater than those working for companies with such programs.

Answer

The correct options are those that provide reverse causation, a common cause, or an alternative independent cause for the correlation.
The correct answers highlight the classic vulnerabilities of causal reasoning on the LSAT. They weaken the argument by presenting valid alternative explanations for the correlation: the effect actually caused the purported cause (reverse causality), a third factor caused both, or a different factor entirely is responsible for the effect.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Companies with wellness programs have higher profit margins. Conclusion: Wellness programs directly cause increased profitability.
To evaluate a causal argument, you must first isolate the observed correlation and the specific causal direction asserted by the author.
2
Determine the logical flaw in the argument.
The economist assumes that a correlation implies causation, failing to consider alternative explanations for why these two phenomena co-occur.
Recognizing the 'Correlation vs. Causation' flaw allows you to anticipate the types of statements that would weaken the argument.
3
Evaluate the answer choices for alternative explanations.
Three options successfully provide alternative explanations: reverse causation (high profits cause wellness programs), a third variable (industry sector causes both), and an alternative cause (longer working hours cause the profits).
Any statement that credibly explains the correlation without relying on the economist's proposed causal mechanism will weaken the conclusion.

Key Concept

When an argument concludes that one thing causes another based solely on a correlation, the argument can be weakened by demonstrating reverse causality, a third variable that causes both, or an alternative cause.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic