Q19 - Researcher: In an experiment, 500 families

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The experiment indicates that having a medical self-help book in the home improves family health. Premises: An experiment gave 500 families a medical self-help book and gave 500 similar families nothing. Over the next year, the families with the book went to the doctor 20% less than they had, but the families without the book visited the doctor at the same rate as the year prior.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever you see a new concept in the conclusion of an argument, there's a problem with that argument. For this one, where did "improves family health" come from? All we know is they went to the doctor less frequently. Whether this was because they were healthier, we can't say. As is so often the case, it pays to think about alternatives here. How else might a self-help book reduce doctor visits? Maybe by helping families understand when visits they might have otherwise made are actually unnecessary.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Is this possible…sure. But how possible is it really that 500 families got a medical self-help book? Enough that it represents a flaw in the reasoning? Probably not.

(B) Is this possible…sure. But does it matter? Not really. The experiment isn't about getting self-help info generally, it's about getting it from a book specifically. So whether the book-less families had access to other self-help info doesn't really impact this argument.

(C) Abstract language alert! We better replace it with concrete language from the stimulus. "A state of affairs" would refer to having or not having the book. What would the two different effects be? Improving family health is one. But what's the other? Fewer doctor visits? But if we're acknowledging that the book does contribute to improved family health, is this really describing a flaw in this argument? Nope.

(D) More abstract language! Well, in the last one the "state of affairs" seemed to be book ownership. What about now? If there are two different states of affairs, maybe that's owning vs. not owning the book. But these two things contributing to the same effect but not contributing to one another doesn't really make sense. What would be an effect of both having and not having the book? Is there anything else the two different states of affairs could be? Since we're trying to weaken an argument that concludes owning the self-help book improves family health, we should probably plug those into the "neither causally contributes to the other" piece and work backwards from there. Ok, so if the two states of affairs are book ownership and improved health, what would they each causally contribute to? Fewer doctor visits! Bingo! This answer is saying the argument doesn't recognize that the book could lead to fewer doctor visits, and improved health could lead to fewer doctor visits, without the book leading to improved health.

(E) Oh no…MORE abstract language! Thankfully this one falls apart without a lot of language replacement finagling. Are we worried about likelihood of owning a medical self-help book? Nope. We're just worried about what happens when one is owned.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Abstract language is a slog, and when a question, especially one in the 15-22 zone, has abstract answers, chances are it's testing your ability to recognize the concrete concepts the abstract terms refer to. Take the time to replace the abstract language with concrete language if this is a question you need to get right. If you're in a time crunch and don't have time to untangle the abstract ones but the other ones (A and B) seem definitely wrong, this might be a good time to cut the bait and just choose between the abstract ones.

#officialexplanation

[LauraJ885]

The abstract language isn't an issue for me, but I'm afraid I don't understand why C is wrong. The explanation given above is that it's wrong because "if we're acknowledging that the book does contribute to improved family health, is this really describing a flaw in this argument? Nope."

However, (C) says: "could causally contribute to", not "does causally contribute to". In other words, (C) isn't asserting that the book contributes to improved family health. It is instead asserting that the causal link that the Conclusion identifies between self-help books and fewer Dr. visits is not the only possible causal link.

In my reading of (C) and (D), both are pointing to the same essential flaw (that improved health isn't the only possible causal explanation). However, (D) seems like the weaker answer to me because its final clause requires that the two causal explanations be mutually exclusive of each other (causally speaking). It seems to me perfectly plausible that one possible state of affairs resulting from the books (e.g., a better understanding of what to do when you start to get sick, including effective home remedies in lieu of a Dr. visit) could be causally interrelated with another one (e.g., better health, partly because of effective home remedies). It seems to me (D) would rule out that possibility.

Could somebody please explain why (C) right and (D) wrong?

[ohthatpatrickfan1662]

Could somebody please explain why (C) right and (D) wrong?

I think you meant why D is right and C is wrong. If I misunderstood what you meant I apologize, but I'll give it a go.

Relevant premise: ...improved family health (A) leads to fewer Dr. visits (B)
Conclusion: ...having a medical self-help book (C) improves family health (D).

You mentioned that you believe C is saying, "the causal link that the Conclusion identifies between self-help books and fewer Dr. visits is not the only possible causal link". The way I see it, the conclusion is saying it's C-->D, and if we accepted that then sure, we could infer C-->B. But why would you accept what the author is saying?

Choice D tells us that two state of affairs are each separately causing a 3rd variable. I understood this as:

self-help books--> fewer dr. visits
improved family health--> fewer dr. visits

The reason this is a good answer is because the conclusion is trying to link them all together by saying, "well it's actually the books causing improved family health which we know reduces doctor visits." BUT,

What we're saying is, "well no, it could be that they're both INDIVIDUALLY causing fewer doctor visits." This is supported by the experiment (families with books visiting doctor less -- nothing directly linking books and family health).

Of course this is all in hindsight. My brain melted during timed conditions.

[RyanS198]

I think ohhthatpatrickfan got the gist of it. I'll try and explain how I interpreted it. The premises actually give us two relationships: that having the medical self-help book led to fewer doctor visits, and that improved family health leads to fewer doctor visits. Then the conclusion claims that the medical self-help book improves family health. But we can't say that. This may be more apparent looking at it diagrammed out:

MB = medical self-help book
DV- = fewer doctor visits
H+ = improved family health

P1: MB --> DV-
P2: H+ --> DV-
C: MB --> H+

The correct answer (D) describes the flaw perfectly. "Two different states of affairs could each causally contribute to same effect (we can see in diagram that MB and H+ both lead to DV-) even though neither causally contributes to the other (from the diagram we can see that drawing MB --> H+ is in error)."

Hope this helps.

[Wenjin]

Just wondering if this is possible justification for C):

The state of affairs: improved health

Caused two or more different effects:

1) having medical books

2) less visiting to doctors

Will that work?