Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumRuling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

Sociologist: A recent corporate study found that employees who participated in an optional weekly mindfulness meditation program reported a 40 percent lower rate of workplace stress compared to employees who did not participate. This demonstrates that practicing mindfulness meditation directly reduces workplace stress.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the sociologist's argument?

  1. The employees who participated in the mindfulness meditation program did not have significantly lighter workloads than the employees who did not participate.Answer
  2. B
    Any employee who regularly practices mindfulness meditation will experience a significant reduction in workplace stress.
  3. C
    Workplace stress and participation in mindfulness meditation are consistently inversely correlated across all departments of the company.
  4. D
    Mindfulness meditation provides other psychological benefits to employees besides reducing workplace stress.
  5. E
    Employees who participated in the mindfulness meditation program were not the only individuals in the company to experience a reduction in stress.

Answer

The assumption that participating employees did not have significantly lighter workloads than non-participating employees.
This option is a necessary defender assumption because it eliminates a critical alternate explanation. The study compared two groups: those who opted into the program and those who did not. If the participants had significantly lighter workloads, that lighter workload—rather than the meditation—could easily explain their lower stress levels. By stating this was not the case, the assumption defends the author's causal claim. When negated (the participants DID have lighter workloads), the argument collapses.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and the premise of the argument.
Conclusion: Mindfulness meditation directly reduces workplace stress. Premise: Employees who participated in an optional meditation program reported 40% lower stress than non-participants.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to evaluating its logical gaps.
2
Analyze the reasoning structure and identify the flaw.
The argument moves from a correlation (participation and lower stress) to a causal claim. The flaw is failing to consider alternate explanations for why the participants had lower stress.
Causal conclusions drawn from observational studies are vulnerable to third-variable confounders and selection bias.
3
Determine what a necessary assumption must do in this context.
A necessary assumption must defend the causal claim by ruling out a plausible alternate explanation (a 'Defender' assumption).
To prove the argument depends on a statement, negating that statement must destroy the argument.
4
Apply the negation technique to the correct option.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The employees who participated DID have significantly lighter workloads.' This provides an alternate cause for the lower stress, destroying the original conclusion.
The negation test definitively proves whether an assumption is logically necessary.

Key Concept

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations in Causal Arguments
Rate this question

Topics

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

More questions from this topic