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