Public Health Official: In our city, individuals who regularly engage in community gardening experience noticeably lower rates of stress-related illnesses compared to individuals who do not. This clearly demonstrates that the practice of community gardening directly reduces a person's vulnerability to stress-related conditions.
Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the public health official's reasoning?
- It infers a causal relationship solely from an observed association between two phenomena.Answer
- BIt treats a condition that is sufficient to reduce stress-related illnesses as though it were necessary to achieve that reduction.
- CIt infers that a property belongs to a whole group based merely on the observation that the property belongs to some individual members of the group.
- DIt draws a conclusion about the absolute number of stress-related illnesses based entirely on evidence concerning the comparative rates of such illnesses.
- EIt illicitly infers that those who do not engage in community gardening will inevitably suffer from stress-related conditions.
Answer
It infers a causal relationship solely from an observed association between two phenomena.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument commits a correlation-causation fallacy. The public health official observes that community gardening and lower stress-related illnesses occur together (an association). From this observation alone, the official concludes that gardening causes the reduction in stress. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores other possibilities, such as reverse causation (being healthier and less stressed gives people the energy and desire to garden) or a third factor (such as higher socioeconomic status or more free time) causing both the gardening and the lower stress levels.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Correlation vs. Causation