Critical Reasoning

I am currently reading "Powerscore CR Bible". In an example, it says:

People who read a lot are more intelligent than other people. Thus reading must cause a person to be intelligent.

Now "Powerscore CR Bible" goes further and claims that each of the following is an assumption in this argument:

a) Sleeping more than 8 hours does not cause a person to be intelligent.
b) Regular exercise does not cause a person to be intelligent.
c) Genetics do not cause a person to be intelligent.

Each of these does weaken the argument, but I am not understanding how these are "assumptions" in the argument.

If the argument had been that that reading is the "only way" for a person to be intelligent, then I could have understood that each of the above would have been an assumption

iongmat wrote:I am currently reading "Powerscore CR Bible". In an example, it says:

People who read a lot are more intelligent than other people. Thus reading must cause a person to be intelligent.

Now "Powerscore CR Bible" goes further and claims that each of the following is an assumption in this argument:

a) Sleeping more than 8 hours does not cause a person to be intelligent.
b) Regular exercise does not cause a person to be intelligent.
c) Genetics do not cause a person to be intelligent.

Each of these does weaken the argument, but I am not understanding how these are "assumptions" in the argument.

If the argument had been that that reading is the "only way" for a person to be intelligent, then I could have understood that each of the above would have been an assumption

Powerscore is trying to illustrate the following:
When a CR concludes that A causes B, one assumption is that there is no ALTERNATE CAUSE.
But the alternate causes offered in the Powerscore example need to be linked to the people discussed in the passage.

Better versions:
People who read a lot do not tend to get at least 10 hours of sleep every day, an amount of sleep known to raise intelligence levels.
People who read a lot do not tend to get regular exercise, which is known to raise intelligence levels.
People who read a lot do not tend to have the "smart gene", which has recently been linked to above-average intelligence levels.
These are all variations of the following line of reasoning:
The argument assumes that people who read a lot do not possess ANOTHER ATTRIBUTE that could account for their above-average intelligence.

Thanks Mitch. What you say makes perfect sense.

Thanks again for clarifying.

Great explanation from Mitch!

Hey I wanted jump in here because one of the things quoted in the Power score is

b) Regular exercise does not cause a person to be intelligent.

Now I know that this is just an answer choice to a CR question, but it turns out that exercise is not only what causes a person to be intelligent, but according to evolutionary anthropologists is quite possibly the reason for human intelligence in general. It is endurance exercise (meaning 30 minutes or more with you pulse up in the "exercise range" - say a light jog or brisk walk)that gave us the big brains, and endurance exercise that builds new brains cells and helps us to control our emotions and anxiety.

For more about exercise and the brain please read https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/12 ... mat-score/

and part 2 https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/12 ... t-anxiety/


This article goes into even more depth for those who need all the knowledge! https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2012/05/ ... e-the-gmat