rey.fernandez wrote:A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.
1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.
True, dextar didn't include the question, but I'm willing to bet it's a "find the assumption that supports the argument" question.
If that's the case, then the answer is (3). The researcher noticed a correlation between two phenomena: manipulation and addiction. He/She concluded that there was a causation such that manipulation causes addiction. This is the conclusion of the argument.
Now, in making this conclusion, the researcher assumes that the other model of causation is not happening, namely that addiction to drugs causes people to be more manipulative. This is the big assumption upon which the argument rests.
(1) is no good: it actually contradicts the argument's conclusion by saying that addiction leads to manipulation. We're looking for an answer that says that addiction DOES NOT lead to manipulation.
(2) is no good: it's out of scope by introducing a distinction between some addicts and some non-addicts. The correct answer is always very closely related to the conclusion of the argument. This answer choice is not.
(3) tells us that drug addiction does not lead to manipulation.
What's the source of this question? Why are there only three answer choices?
Rey
I'll play the game too and guess that this is a "weaken" question instead (in large part because I don't agree that (3) is an assumption required by the argument - the
success of the manipulation is outside the scope).
The argument itself follows a classic causation pattern:
Study shows that X and Y go together.
Therefore, X causes Y.
Every time an author moves from events occuring together to a conclusion that there's a causal link, the author is making 3 assumptions:
(i) it's not just coincidence;
(ii) there's no overriding cause for both phenomena (i.e. it's not just a correlation); and
(iii) the stated cause and effect aren't backward.
In the argument posted above, (iii) is the relevant assumption. The author says that X and Y occur together, therefore X causes Y. However, the author overlooks the possibility that Y causes X instead.
Our prediction for a weakener: Drug addicts frequently become manipulators.
Looking at the choices provided, (1) is a perfect match.
. Yes this indeed is the weaken the argument question.
