Critical Reasoning

David@VeritasPrep wrote:
It is not GMAT would you still like to discuss how to attack it?

Yup david, Took me a while to kick out C between C and D.

C accuses the argument of making an assumption, but I think the writers of the stem are allowed to make any assumptions they want.

I usually attack flaw questions based on instinct and not any particular method.

But is there any systematic way to look at this not so common question type ?

Yes, even I would like to know the ways to attack the "argument is vulnerable because" type questions.

IMO D

How can we eliminate option A? The argument says educated people make informed lifestyle choices, what if its proven that uneducated people can also make informed lifestyle choices.

what's the approach to choose between A and D?

So what is the answer for this question?

SaraAfifi wrote:So what is the answer for this question?

D

my thought process - Even if people without high education can still make informed decision, (choice A) still there is a correlation between informed decision and good health. so 'A' kind of strengthens the causality. A looks tempting though!

Not GMAT, but let's try it out for fun! The question here reminds me a lot of GMAT Method of Reasoning question. Yes, the "most vulnerable" part makes it like a Weaken, but really we're being asked to identify HOW the reasoning proceeds. Method of Reasoning questions focus on how an argument is attempted, contradicted, or put forth. Unlike Strengthen or Weaken questions, you don't need to focus on the merits of the argument so much as its argumentative strategy!

Some people believe that good health is due to luck. However, studies from many countries indicate a strong correlation between good health and high educational levels. Thus research supports the view that good health is largely the result of making informed lifestyle choices.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

ARGUMENT: Luck --> Health. Health <--> Education. So, Lifestyle --> Health.

This argument is pretty bad. It makes a strong cause/effect claim, based on a simple correlation. The assumption is that correlation between health/education means that lifestyle causes health. Futhermore, it makes a big jump between "education" and "lifestyle choices."

WHY this argument is bad is going to be our prediction.

PREDICTION: It assumes "education" = "lifestyle choices" AND that correlation = causation. By correlation = causation, we mean that an author believes that just because two things are connected (correlated), they have a causal relationship. To weaken, we can show that the correlation is mere coincidence, that the causal relationship actually happens in reverse (X causes Y instead of Y causing X), or that there is an outside cause for both things.

A. presumes, without providing justification that only highly educated people make informed lifestyle choices
B. overlooks the possibility that people who make informed lifestyle choices may nonetheless suffer from inherited diseases
C. presumes, without providing justification, that informed lifestyle choices are available to everyone
D. overlooks the possibility that the same thing may causally contribute both to education and to good health
E. does not acknowledge that some people who fail to make informed lifestyle choices are in good health

FIRST PASS:

A - maybe
B - "inherited diseases" is far too specific/out of scope
C - "available to everyone" is not really within scope
D - maybe; there could be a 3rd thing
E - why does it need to acknowledge this?

SECOND PASS:

It has to be between A and D. Between these two, D must be correct since it attacks the LARGER reason why the argument is flawed. It falls into the classic "correlation/causation" trap. Just because two things are found to occur together, DOES NOT MEAN that one causes the other. A third thing that is unforeseen could be causing both of them.

The answer is D.

Veritas has a nice little blog with another Causation/Correlation question: https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2015/03 ... questions/

Khan Academy also dives into this concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROpbdO-gRUo

Hope this helps!

Best,
Vivian

Marty Murray wrote:

SaraAfifi wrote:So what is the answer for this question?

D

Hi Marty,

Please can you explain why you chose D..?

Thanks,
Mallika

mallika hunsur wrote:

Marty Murray wrote:

SaraAfifi wrote:So what is the answer for this question?

D

Hi Marty,

Please can you explain why you chose D..?

Thanks,
Mallika

Hi.

The argument is based on a correlation, the correlation between high educational levels and good health.

The writer jumps from seeing this correlation to concluding that there is a causal relationship in which high education leads to informed decision making, which in turn leads to good health. Given that there is no real basis for making this leap, the argument is flawed.

A is actually interesting because it also highlights a leap. In addition to the leap described above, the writer has assumed that people with higher levels of education make more informed decisions regarding health. However education does supposedly inform people, so this leap is not completely out of line.

The problem with B is that even if some diseases were somehow inherited, which is debatable, there could still be a causal relationship between informed lifestyle choices and reduced incidence of disease.

C does nothing to weaken the argument.

D describes the weakest aspect of the argument, the unfounded leap from a correlation between education and good health to a causal relationship between the two.

The argument could still hold in general even if there are some exceptional cases such as as those mentioned in E. The writer did not say there is a perfect correlation between lifestyle choices and good health.

So D is the best choice, because it describes the key flaw in the structure of this argument.