Q19 - Medical researcher: At the Flegco

[smiller]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise: Employees who wear back belts are more likely to suffer back injuries than those who do not.
Conclusion: Back belts do not help to prevent back injuries.

Answer Anticipation:
If the conclusion claims that one thing cures or prevents another then we should be looking for a Correlation vs. Causation flaw in the argument. In this case the conclusion states that one thing does not help to prevent another. The evidence only shows a correlation: employees who wear the back belts are more likely than those who don’t to have back injuries. The premises don’t explain why this happens, though. Without knowing more about what causes the back injuries, we can't conclude that the back belts aren't helping to prevent them.

Right away, we should wonder if there is another factor in play. Maybe the employees who wear back belts are more likely to be injured in the first place. That’s why they’re wearing the belts. And maybe there would be even more injuries if the employees didn’t wear the belts. We don’t know that all of this is true, but it’s a reasonable possibility, and the argument doesn’t address this possibility.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Correct: This answer suggests that there could be another factor causing the injuries. The two groups, those who wear back belts and those who don’t, each face a different risk for back injury to begin with.

(B) Unhelpful comparison: If Flegco employees are more likely to wear back belts than employees at other companies, that doesn’t hurt our argument.

(C) Wrong flaw: Our premise states that wearing a back belt is associated with higher risk of back injury, but we’re not assuming that the back belts cause the injuries.

(D) Wrong flaw: Let’s replace the abstract terms in this answer with terms from the argument. Does the argument confuse a claim that back belts do not cause back injuries, with a claim that back belts prevent back injuries? No. Our argument doesn’t claim that back belts do not cause back injuries.

(E) Wrong flaw: The main part of choice (E) could be translated as, “even if back belts are sufficient to prevent back injuries, their presence may not be necessary to prevent them.” This isn’t something that our argument has to address. The conclusion is that back belts do not help to prevent injuries. Stating that back belts may not be necessary indicates that something else could do the job. That’s different than suggesting that they don’t help at all.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Recognizing that the premise involves a correlation while the conclusion involves causation will help you select the correct answer in this question. To understand why the wrong answers are wrong, it helps to replace abstract wording in the answers with specific terms from the stimulus.


#officialexplanation