Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaIdentifying Logical Flaws and Reasoning Vulnerabilities

A municipal agricultural board analyzed crop yields across farms in Region K over the past five years. The board observed that farms using Organic Soil Treatment X produced 20 percent higher crop yields on average than farms using standard synthetic fertilizers. Based on this observation, the board concluded that adopting Organic Soil Treatment X increases agricultural productivity. Consequently, the board recommended that all farms in Region K switch to Organic Soil Treatment X to boost overall regional crop output.

True or False: The argument's reasoning is vulnerable to criticism because it assumes that the higher crop yields observed on farms using Organic Soil Treatment X were caused by the treatment itself, rather than by other pre-existing differences between those farms and farms using synthetic fertilizers.

Cevap: Cevap

Cevap

True
The argument commits a classic correlation-versus-causation error. The author concludes that Organic Soil Treatment X causes higher productivity based solely on an observed association in data, ignoring the possibility that farms opting for Treatment X had superior soil quality, better equipment, or higher investment to begin with.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and evidence in the passage.
Evidence: Farms using Organic Soil Treatment X had 20 percent higher average yields than farms using synthetic fertilizers. Conclusion: Treatment X causes increased productivity, so all regional farms should switch to Treatment X.
Understanding the argument structure is essential for uncovering its underlying logic and vulnerabilities.
2
Evaluate the logical gap between the evidence and conclusion.
The author infers a direct causal link from a mere statistical correlation between the treatment and crop yields.
Observational data does not rule out confounding factors such as superior baseline soil quality, irrigation resources, or farmer expertise on farms that chose Treatment X.
3
Assess the truth value of the evaluated statement.
The statement accurately identifies that the argument fails to account for pre-existing differences between the farm groups.
Since the statement correctly describes the primary reasoning vulnerability of the argument, the evaluation is True.

Anahtar Kavram

Correlation vs. Causation & Confounding Variables
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Identifying Logical Flaws and Reasoning Vulnerabilities

Bu konudan daha fazla soru