A recent study observed that city residents who regularly visit public parks report lower average stress levels than residents who rarely visit parks. Based on this observation, the city council concluded that spending time in public parks directly causes a reduction in stress levels for city residents. The reasoning in the city council's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
- It takes for granted that a correlation between two factors proves that one factor directly causes the other.Cevap
- BIt draws a broad conclusion about city residents by relying on an unrepresentative sample of rural residents.
- CIt treats spending time in public parks as a necessary condition for achieving any reduction in stress.
- DIt assumes without justification that reduced stress levels inevitably lead to improvements in physical health.
- EIt selects evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite effect of the outcome the city council intended to measure.
Cevap
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it assumes that a correlation between visiting parks and lower stress implies a direct causal relationship.
The correct answer accurately pinpoints the argument's central flaw: inferring a direct cause-and-effect relationship solely from an observed correlation. It is possible that people who already have lower stress levels have more leisure time to visit parks (reverse causality), or that another variable such as higher income enables both park visits and lower stress.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Confusing Correlation with Causation