Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorFlaw in the Reasoning

Epidemiologist: Proponents of the new hospital sanitation directive claim that it significantly reduces the rate of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections. They support this by pointing out that in the two years since the directive was issued at General Hospital, the number of nursing staff fully complying with the directive has steadily risen, which has in turn fostered a culture of heightened hygiene awareness. But the proponents' claim is entirely misguided. Over that exact same two-year period, the overall rate of nosocomial infections at General Hospital actually increased by 12 percent.

The epidemiologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

  1. takes for granted that a net increase in the incidence of a problem precludes the possibility that a specific intervention had a mitigating effect on that problemCevap
  2. B
    infers a causal relationship between the implementation of the directive and a rise in infections merely from the observation that the two occurred simultaneously
  3. C
    illicitly draws a conclusion regarding the absolute number of hospital-acquired infections based solely on evidence concerning a percentage change in the rate of those infections
  4. D
    fails to recognize that evidence undermining an intermediate conclusion does not necessarily invalidate an argument's main conclusion
  5. E
    treats an outcome that is sufficient to cast doubt on the proponents' claim as though it were a necessary condition to definitively refute that claim

Cevap

The correct answer describes how the argument assumes an overall increase in a problem means a specific measure failed to mitigate it, ignoring the possibility that the issue could have increased even more without the measure.
The argument concludes that a directive does not reduce infection rates simply because the overall infection rate went up. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores the possibility that the directive was indeed effective at suppressing infections, but other powerful, unrelated factors caused the overall rate to rise anyway. In other words, without the directive, the rate might have increased by much more than 12 percent. The correct option captures this by stating the argument takes for granted that a net increase in a problem precludes a mitigating effect.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion.
The proponents' claim (that the sanitation directive significantly reduces the rate of infections) is entirely misguided.
This sets the target for the evaluation. The author is attempting to prove that the directive does not reduce the rate of infections.
2
Identify the premise supporting the conclusion.
Over the two-year period since the directive was issued, the overall rate of infections increased by 12 percent.
This is the sole piece of evidence the author uses to invalidate the proponents' claim.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The author assumes that an actual increase in the infection rate proves the directive didn't work. However, the author fails to consider a counterfactual scenario: what if, without the directive, infections would have increased by 30 percent? If so, the directive DID reduce the rate from what it otherwise would have been.
Flaw questions require identifying exactly why the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Here, the flaw is ignoring alternative baselines/counterfactuals.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the abstract description of this gap.
The correct choice accurately describes taking for granted that a net increase in a problem precludes the possibility of a mitigating effect.
The correct answer must precisely match the structural flaw identified in step 3 without introducing extraneous logical errors.

Anahtar Kavram

Causal Reasoning: Ignoring Counterfactuals
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru