Critical Reasoning

Time and again it has been shown that students who attend colleges with low faculty/student ratios get the most well-rounded education. As a result, when my children are ready to attend college, I'll be sure they attend a school with a very small student population.
Which of the following, if true, identifies the greatest flaw in the reasoning above?

.A low faculty/student ratio is the effect of a well-rounded education, not its source.
.Intelligence should be considered the result of childhood environment, not advanced education.
.A very small student population does not by itself, ensure a low faculty/student ratio.
.Parental desires and preferences rarely determines a child's choice of a college or university.
.Students must take advantage of the low faculty/student ratio by intentionally choosing small classes.

Altough it is apperant that the answer is C, on the other hand A raises some questions in my mind? Could someone elaborate?

Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.

Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.

You said answer would be A if the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.' but how can low faculty/student ratio be the effect of a well-rounded education??

dinaroneo wrote:

Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.

You said answer would be A if the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.' but how can low faculty/student ratio be the effect of a well-rounded education??

Hi,
We are actually stating that the causal relation is reversed. Because the authors believes that the cause and effect relationship is correctly stated, showing that the relationship is backwards (the claimed effect is actually the cause of the claimed cause) undermines the conclusion.

Hey

Got your point! but then this is not weaken the argument question type, right?

IMO C

True! This is not a weaken question, but a flaw question is very similar it is just that you describe the flaw instead of stating the fact that would weaken. So treat them much the same.

I do not think that A is an appropriate answer choice if we are looking to reverse causation.

A low faculty/ student ratio can be a cause of well - rounded education. But how can a well - rounded education be the cause of a low faculty/ student ratio?

That makes no sense from a logical perspective.

I think in this case if it were a weaken question you might want to find an alternate cause but to reverse the cause is tough.

Here is one where the causes can be reversed - it is an LSAT question. Those who own a laptop make more money so owning a laptop is the cause of higher pay. Of course we can say the earning more money will have a better chance of owning a laptop so the cause is reversed.

But on this question we might have an alternate cause such as an active student population results in well-rounded education.