Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyCorrelation vs. Causation

A recent health survey showed that residents of Seaside town who regularly eat seafood report feeling stressed significantly less often than residents who rarely eat seafood. The authors of the survey concluded that the nutrients in seafood must have a direct calming effect on the human nervous system.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the survey authors' reasoning?

  1. A
    It presumes, without providing justification, that seafood is the only food source that contains these specific nutrients.
  2. It fails to consider that a third factor, such as living a generally relaxed coastal lifestyle, might lead to both eating more seafood and experiencing less stress.Answer
  3. C
    It bases its conclusion on the implicit assumption that the self-reported survey data regarding stress levels is entirely inaccurate.
  4. D
    It overlooks the fact that some individuals who never eat seafood also report experiencing very little stress.
  5. E
    It confuses a lower proportion of stressed residents with a lower absolute number of stressed individuals in the population.

Answer

The correct answer is the one pointing out that the authors failed to consider a third factor that could cause both the seafood consumption and the lower stress levels.
The correct answer accurately describes the classic correlation-to-causation fallacy. The argument observes two things happening together (eating seafood and low stress) and assumes one causes the other. The correct answer points out that a third factor (like a relaxed coastal lifestyle) could independently cause both, which destroys the author's causal claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Seafood eaters report less stress than non-seafood eaters (a correlation). Conclusion: Seafood nutrients directly calm the nervous system (a causal claim).
Identifying the structural gap between the evidence provided and the claim made is the first step in finding a logical flaw.
2
Identify the type of reasoning error.
The argument jumps from a correlation to a causal relationship.
Recognizing classic LSAT flaw categories quickly guides you to the correct answer choice.
3
Evaluate the options for a description of a causal flaw.
The correct option correctly points out that a third factor could be responsible for both elements of the correlation, breaking the assumed causal link.
A valid criticism of a causal conclusion drawn from a correlation is pointing out alternate explanations, such as a common third cause or reverse causality.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic