Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumCorrelation vs. Causation

Public Health Official: A recent ten-year study tracking thousands of adults found a strong statistical link between shopping at premium health-food retailers and a lower incidence of cardiovascular illness. The researchers noted that the more frequently participants shopped at these stores, the fewer cardiovascular issues they experienced. Clearly, consuming the specialized nutritional products sold at these retailers substantially improves cardiovascular health.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the public health official's reasoning?

  1. A
    treats a condition that is sufficient to guarantee improved cardiovascular health as if it were a necessary condition for achieving that result
  2. B
    confuses the absolute number of people who shop at premium health-food retailers with the percentage of those shoppers who experience cardiovascular issues
  3. fails to consider that an underlying factor, such as a generally health-conscious lifestyle, could independently lead individuals both to shop at premium health-food retailers and to maintain better cardiovascular healthAnswer
  4. D
    presumes, without providing justification, that cardiovascular illness is the only significant health concern affecting the adults in the study
  5. E
    rejects the study's findings on the basis that the adults tracked over the ten-year period might not have accurately reported their shopping habits

Answer

The statement identifying that the argument fails to consider an underlying factor that independently leads to both behaviors.
The correct answer identifies a classic correlation-causation fallacy. The public health official observes a correlation between shopping at health-food stores and better cardiovascular health, immediately concluding that the food causes the health improvement. However, this ignores the possibility of a third factor (such as a preexisting health-conscious lifestyle or higher income level) that causes both the choice of where to shop and the improved health outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument.
Premise: There is a strong statistical link (correlation) between shopping at premium health-food stores and lower cardiovascular illness. Conclusion: Consuming these products improves cardiovascular health (causation).
Identifying the premises and conclusion is essential to isolating the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical flaw in moving from the premise to the conclusion.
The argument leaps from a correlation between two phenomena to a definitive causal relationship.
Recognizing standard LSAT flawed reasoning patterns helps anticipate the correct answer choice.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the identified flaw.
The correct option points out the 'third variable' problem—a classic alternate explanation for a correlation, which weakens the causal conclusion.
The correct answer must accurately describe what the argument does wrong without bringing in irrelevant concepts.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic