Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardCorrelation vs. Causation

Recent excavations at the Bronze Age settlement of Oakhaven revealed a pattern: dwellings containing large quantities of imported luxury ceramics also contained significantly more stored grain than did dwellings lacking such ceramics. From this finding, the lead archaeologist concludes that the desire to acquire these imported luxury goods motivated certain households to dramatically increase their agricultural output in order to produce a surplus for trade.

The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it does which one of the following?

  1. A
    Takes for granted that a greater absolute quantity of stored grain within a dwelling equated to a larger percentage of the settlement's total agricultural yield.
  2. B
    Treats a motivation that is sufficient to cause a household to increase its agricultural output as the only condition necessary to cause such an increase.
  3. Fails to consider that an excess of stored grain may have been the cause, rather than the intended effect, of a household's acquisition of luxury ceramics.Answer
  4. D
    Infers that because certain individual dwellings at Oakhaven successfully produced a grain surplus, the settlement of Oakhaven as a whole produced a grain surplus.
  5. E
    Infers that because some dwellings contained large quantities of imported ceramics, most dwellings in the settlement engaged in the trade of these items.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument fails to consider that an excess of stored grain may have been the cause, rather than the intended effect, of a household's acquisition of luxury ceramics.
The argument observes a correlation between two variables—quantities of stored grain and quantities of imported luxury ceramics—and immediately assumes a specific causal direction (desire for ceramics caused the grain surplus). It is highly vulnerable to criticism because it ignores a very plausible alternate explanation involving reverse causality: the households may have had more luxury ceramics simply because their pre-existing excess grain gave them the wealth necessary to trade for those items.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the primary evidence (premise) of the argument.
The premise establishes a statistical correlation: dwellings with more luxury ceramics also have more stored grain.
Understanding the factual basis of the argument is required before analyzing its logic.
2
Identify the main conclusion drawn by the author.
The archaeologist concludes a specific causal relationship: the desire for luxury ceramics caused the households to increase their agricultural output.
Pinpointing the conclusion clarifies exactly what the author is trying to prove based on the evidence.
3
Evaluate the logical gap between the premise (correlation) and the conclusion (causation).
The argument assumes a specific direction of causality while ignoring the possibility of reverse causality. A grain surplus (wealth) could just as easily be the cause of acquiring luxury ceramics, rather than the result of wanting them.
Identifying this unstated assumption reveals the argument's central flaw.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation (Reverse Causality)
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic