Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaEvaluating Reasoning Flaws

A recent urban planning study analyzed twenty metropolitan areas and observed that cities with a high density of public parks reported significantly lower average stress levels among residents than did cities with fewer public parks. The study's authors concluded that expanding green spaces within urban centers directly improves the psychological well-being of city residents. Consequently, municipal leaders in City X plan to convert several commercial districts into public parks in order to reduce resident stress levels.

Which of the following best describes the flaw in the argument's reasoning?

  1. It infers a direct causal relationship between public parks and reduced stress based merely on an observed correlation between the two, ignoring alternative explanations such as reverse causation or underlying socioeconomic factors.Cevap
  2. B
    It fails to consider whether commercial districts generate vital municipal tax revenues that fund public health initiatives unrelated to stress reduction.
  3. C
    It reinforces the conclusion by providing evidence that green spaces offer psychological benefits, rather than identifying a weakness in the proposed plan.
  4. D
    It relies on an unstated premise that residents in commercial districts currently experience higher stress than residents in residential neighborhoods.
  5. E
    It assumes without justification that establishing public parks will completely eliminate all sources of urban stress for all residents.

Cevap

The correct choice is the option stating that the argument infers a direct causal relationship based merely on an observed correlation between public parks and reduced stress, ignoring alternative explanations such as reverse causation or underlying socioeconomic factors.
The argument commits a classic correlation-versus-causation flaw. It notes an association between high park density and lower resident stress across cities, then immediately assumes that adding parks directly causes stress reduction. It overlooks plausible alternative explanations—for instance, that wealthier cities with lower overall stress have greater municipal budgets to build parks, or that third factors such as lower population density cause both high park acreage and low stress levels.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into premise and conclusion.
Premise: Cities with high park density have lower average resident stress. Conclusion: Expanding green spaces directly improves psychological well-being and will reduce stress in City X.
Isolating the premise and conclusion reveals where the author makes a logical leap in moving from data to a recommendation.
2
Evaluate the logical connection between the premise and conclusion.
The argument observes a statistical correlation (park density and lower stress) and jumps to a direct causal claim (parks cause lower stress).
Observing that two factors co-occur across cities does not prove that one directly causes the other; a third variable (e.g., higher city budget/wealth) or reverse causality (happier/wealthier cities build more parks) could explain the pattern.
3
Match the identified flaw with the choice descriptions.
The option identifying the leap from correlation to causation accurately describes the structural defect in the author's reasoning.
This directly pinpoints the correlation-versus-causation fallacy embedded in the passage.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws: Correlation vs. Causation Fallacy
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws

Bu konudan daha fazla soru