Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCorrelation vs. Causation

A recent analysis of centuries-old ledger books from the maritime republic of Vespucia reveals a striking pattern: during decades when atmospheric carbon isotope ratios indicate prolonged periods of unseasonable regional warmth, the Republic's recorded expenditures on naval shipyard expansions were unusually high. The lead historian concludes that the unseasonable warmth must have caused the Republic to significantly increase its naval investment.

Which of the following, if true, most effectively exposes a flaw in the historian's reasoning by providing a valid alternative explanation for the observed correlation? Select all that apply.

  1. The massive deforestation and industrial smelting required to rapidly expand the naval shipyards released vast amounts of particulate matter and greenhouse gases, directly causing the localized, unseasonable regional warmth.Answer
  2. B
    During the decades with unseasonable warmth, the proportion of Vespucia's total budget allocated to shipyard expansions was substantially higher than in cooler decades, even if the absolute number of ships constructed did not increase.
  3. C
    The carbon isotope ratios used by the historian to measure historical temperatures are frequently influenced by deep ocean current shifts rather than by actual atmospheric warmth.
  4. D
    Prolonged periods of unseasonable warmth typically allowed Vespuccian merchant vessels to safely navigate previously frozen northern trade routes, generating immense new wealth that required protection.
  5. Decades marked by intense solar maximums both caused the unseasonable regional warmth and disrupted the atmospheric pressure systems that foreign competitor fleets relied upon, prompting Vespucia to aggressively expand its shipyards to monopolize the sudden gap in global shipping.Answer

Answer

The options describing the environmental impact of shipyard expansions (demonstrating reverse causality) and the dual effects of solar maximums (demonstrating a third-variable cause).
The correct answers successfully identify classic causal reasoning flaws by providing robust alternative explanations for the observed correlation. One answer demonstrates reverse causality by suggesting the industrial activity of the shipyard expansion caused the environmental warmth. The other answer introduces a third variable, solar maximums, which independently caused both the warmth and the strategic need for shipyard expansion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core structure of the historian's argument.
Premise: There is a correlation between unseasonable warmth and shipyard expansion. Conclusion: Warmth caused the shipyard expansion.
Deconstructing the argument into premises and conclusion is essential to identifying the logical gap.
2
Identify the specific logical flaw in the reasoning.
The argument assumes that because A (warmth) and B (shipyard expansion) occurred simultaneously, A must have directly caused B. This ignores other possible relationships.
This is a classic 'correlation vs. causation' flaw.
3
Determine the criteria for correct answers based on the question stem.
Since it asks for alternative causal explanations, correct answers must show that B caused A, that a third factor C caused both A and B, or that the correlation is merely coincidental.
Applying the concept of causal alternatives filters out irrelevant distractors.
4
Evaluate the choices systematically against the established criteria.
One correct option shows that shipbuilding caused warming (reverse causality). The other correct option shows that solar maximums caused both phenomena (third factor). The incorrect options attack premises, play with numbers, or inadvertently strengthen the argument.
Rigorous elimination ensures only the options that fulfill the precise logical task are selected.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic