Critical Reasoning

The number of airplanes equipped with a new anti collision device has increased steadily during the past 2 years. during the same period, it has become increasingly common for key information about an airplane's altitude and speed to disappear suddenly from the air traffic controller's screen. The new anti collision device, which operates at the same frequency as air traffic radar, is therefore responsible for the sudden disappearance of key information.

Which one of the following if true most seriously weakens the argument?

A> The anti collision has already prevented a number of accidents.
B> It was not until the new anti collision device was introduced that key info first began disappearing.
C> The new anti collision device is scheduled to be moved to a different frequency
D> Key information began disappearing from controllers screens three months before the new anti collision device was first used
E> The sudden disappearance of key information from controllers screen has occurred only at relatively large airports.


I want to ask that why is E wrong. Right now we have Cause A ( anti collision device) --> Effect ( info disappear) . But if we can provide and alternative cause B ( something to do with large airports) to the same effect ( info disappear)... then doesn't it weaken the argument?

IMO D
a)irrelevant
b)strengthens the argument
C)supports
d)as info was disappearing before the use of anti collision device, anti collison device is not responsible
e)irrelevant.

IMO D
The statement says that : anti collision device caused the sudden disappearance of key information.

If we can show that even in absence of "cause" the "effect" occurred, we can weaken the argument.

A> The anti collision has already prevented a number of accidents. (no effect on the conclusion. It might be possible the device has started malfunctioning recently)
B> It was not until the new anti collision device was introduced that key info first began disappearing. (supporting the argument)
C> The new anti collision device is scheduled to be moved to a different frequency (supporting the argument that at the same freq device interfere with the key information)
D> Key information began disappearing from controllers screens three months before the new anti collision device was first used (in absence of "cause" the effect occurred --weakener)
E> The sudden disappearance of key information from controllers screen has occurred only at relatively large airports.(but it has happened)

Guys, I know the answer is D and I chose it too. But my purpose of asking this question is to understand more about causality than to specifically answer answer this questions. If possible, please try to find a flaw in the argument :

If A then B
but also, if C then B

Thus we have weakened the original argument of If A then B.

E imo is not irrelevant. even if it is, this is an weaken question where info outside the original ( yes i mean relevant info outside the argument) can be used..

what? wrote:Guys, I know the answer is D and I chose it too. But my purpose of asking this question is to understand more about causality than to specifically answer answer this questions. If possible, please try to find a flaw in the argument :

If A then B
but also, if C then B

Thus we have weakened the original argument of If A then B.

E imo is not irrelevant. even if it is, this is an weaken question where info outside the original ( yes i mean relevant info outside the argument) can be used..

Let me explain it once again. E does not give you an alternative cause. It simply tells you that sudden disappearance of key information occurred only at large airport(only talks about a location or place where the problem occurred). LOCATION,where it occurred is simply irrelevant, because using this information you still CANNOT PROVE that "anti-collision device DID NOT cause disappearance of key information" IN ORDER TO WEAKEN the argument.

Hope its clear. If not, I will explain you using some simple events.

well the template was mostly to help but i see your point regarding the timing ...

thanks once again..

lunarpower wrote:

what? wrote:Guys, I know the answer is D and I chose it too. But my purpose of asking this question is to understand more about causality than to specifically answer answer this questions. If possible, please try to find a flaw in the argument :

If A then B
but also, if C then B

Thus we have weakened the original argument of If A then B.

this "template" completely misses the most important part of choice D, which is that "c" caused "b" BEFORE "a" HAD THE CHANCE to cause "b".

otherwise, this template has no validity at all, ever. lots and lots of things have multiple causes; the presence of other possible causes in no way weakens the fact that x can cause y.
for instance:
jumping from a 50-story building will cause death.
if i tell you drinking lye will also cause death, this obviously does not weaken the original statement.

also -- trying to memorize ANY kind of "template" for strengthen/weaken is a
very, very bad idea. not only will it be futile, but it will also impede your ability to THINK about problems that do not conform to the template (i.e., 99.99999% of problems that you will ever see).

Hey Ron! I'm not arguing for option E, but isn't the central assumption of causal conclusions based on the fact that the author believes that X is the ONLY cause for Y? So if i were to show that there is an alternate cause, then it does weaken the conclusion right?