Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardCorrelation vs. Causation

Recent excavations at the ancient city of Oxtotitlán revealed a striking correlation: the neighborhoods with the highest concentration of imported luxury ceramics also contained the highest number of clay tablets detailing unpaid financial debts owed by the residents of those households. The lead historian concludes that the exorbitant cost of acquiring these luxury ceramics drove the residents of these neighborhoods into severe debt.

The reasoning in the historian's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

  1. A
    fails to distinguish between an intermediate conclusion used to support the argument and the final conclusion of the argument itself
  2. B
    presumes, without providing sufficient justification, that a high concentration of artifacts necessarily indicates a large absolute quantity of those artifacts
  3. takes for granted that one of two co-occurring phenomena is the cause of the other without considering that both may be effects of a common underlying causeAnswer
  4. D
    treats a condition that must be present for a resident to be in severe debt as a condition that guarantees a resident is in severe debt
  5. E
    bases its conclusion on general historical knowledge about ancient economies rather than strictly on the specific archaeological evidence provided

Answer

The argument is flawed because it assumes a causal relationship (buying ceramics causes debt) based solely on a correlation, failing to consider that a third factor could independently cause both phenomena.
The correct answer accurately diagnoses the fundamental logical vulnerability in the historian's reasoning. The historian observes that two phenomena (luxury ceramics and debt tablets) occur together in the same neighborhoods. From this mere correlation, the historian concludes that one directly caused the other. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores alternative explanations, particularly the possibility that a third, common factor caused both. For instance, if these neighborhoods were the commercial hubs of the city, the merchants living there might naturally possess both imported luxury goods (their inventory) and extensive debt records (their business financing).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument to isolate the premise and the conclusion.
Premise: Neighborhoods with the most luxury ceramics also have the most debt tablets. Conclusion: Buying the ceramics caused the debt.
Identifying the exact evidence and the final claim is the first step in evaluating an argument's validity.
2
Examine the logical leap between the premise and the conclusion.
The premise establishes a correlation (two things happening together), but the conclusion asserts a specific causal direction.
Many logical flaws stem from how the author interprets the relationship between pieces of evidence.
3
Identify alternative explanations for the evidence that the author failed to consider.
A third factor, such as these neighborhoods being commercial districts where merchants routinely traded luxury goods and used credit, could explain the presence of both artifacts without one causing the other.
If alternative explanations are plausible, the author's strict causal conclusion is unwarranted, revealing the core flaw.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic