People with high blood pressure are generally more nervous a

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

People with high blood pressure are generally more nervous and anxious than people who do not have high blood pressure. This fact show that this particular combination of personality traits-the so called hypertensive personality-is likely to cause a person with these traits to develop high blood pressure.

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

(A) fails to define the term "hypertensive personality"
(B) presupposes that people have permanent personality traits
(C) simply restates the claim that there is a "hypertensive personality" without providing evidence to support that claim.
(D) takes a correlation between personality traits and high blood pressure as proof that the traits cause high blood pressure.
(E) focuses on nervousness and anxiety only, ignoring other personality traits that people with high blood pressure might have

OA D

Source: Manhattan Prep
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:04 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

This argument demonstrates a very common logical flaw: CORRELATION v. CAUSATION.

We're given that "people with high blood pressure are generally more nervous and anxious than people who do not have high blood pressure." In other words, these two phenomena tend to occur together.

Then, we're given this conclusion: "This fact show that this particular combination of personality traits-the so called hypertensive personality-is likely to cause a person with these traits to develop high blood pressure."

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because X and Y occur together, X must have caused Y. In many cases, there could be other explanations:

1. Y caused X instead.
Ex: "Whenever I see people carrying umbrellas, it's always raining. Therefore, umbrellas must cause rain." Nope! The causation is the other way around.

2. Some 3rd event Z caused both X and Y.
Ex: "People tend to get more sunburns at times of year when ice cream sales are high. Therefore, ice cream must cause sunburns." Nope, these were both caused by the external factor of Summer, but they're unrelated to each other.

3. It's a coincidence.
See here for examples: https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Answer choice D states exactly what we're looking for: the argument is flawed because it conflates correlation with causation.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members