Nutritionist: A recent study of dietary habits in over fifty countries revealed a striking pattern: populations that consume high amounts of culinary spices tend to have significantly lower rates of cardiovascular disease than populations that consume very few spices. Therefore, adding more spices to one's diet is an effective way to decrease the risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
The reasoning in the nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
- infers a causal relationship between two phenomena solely on the basis of an observed statistical association between themCevap
- Bfails to distinguish between the main conclusion regarding dietary habits and a subsidiary conclusion used to support it
- Ctreats a condition that is merely sufficient to decrease the risk of a disease as if it were necessary to decrease that risk
- Ddraws a conclusion about the absolute number of people with cardiovascular disease from evidence concerning proportional rates
- Epresumes, without providing justification, that what is true of a population as a whole must be true of each individual member of that population
Cevap
The correct answer is the option stating that the argument infers a causal relationship between two phenomena solely on the basis of an observed statistical association between them.
The argument observes a statistical correlation between high spice consumption and lower rates of cardiovascular disease within certain populations. From this mere correlation, the nutritionist concludes that consuming more spices actively causes a decrease in cardiovascular disease risk. This is a classic causal flaw, as the argument fails to consider alternative explanations, such as a third factor (e.g., overall climate, lifestyle, or other dietary components common in spice-consuming regions) that could be responsible for the lower disease rates.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Correlation vs. Causation Flaw