Q4 - The manufacturers of NoSmoke

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
NoSmoke has 2 ingredients. A study shows 1 doesn't help with smoking.
Conclusion:
If the other doesn't, NoSmoke is a joke.

Answer Anticipation:
Ingredients vs. mixture? That's screaming Part to Whole. Maybe the ingredients are super effective, but only when combined.

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Bingo. This is the Part to Whole flaw answer. I might leave it in case this is really a Whole to Part answer and I'm reversing it, but if I don't see another answer, I'm going with this one.

(B) Wrong flaw (Correlation vs. Causation). This conclusion is saying something doesn't cause an outcome, so it'd be hard to have a jump between correlation and causation.

(C) Wrong flaw (Sampling). While a study is done (which suggests there might be a Sampling flaw), we have no reason to question the sample. We're told that the study was of smokers, and the conclusion is also about smokers.

(D) Wrong flaw (False Choice). The conclusion is just about cravings, not whether it's effective at getting people to quit. If the conclusion was about the effectiveness of the product overall, then this might be in play.

(E) Wrong flaw (Ad Hominem/motivation). There's no accusations that the smoker or the author are biased here.

Takeaway/Pattern: Words like "ingredients" are a huge indicator that you should consider a Part/Whole flaw.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Hi,

So I think for this argument, there are 2 premises and one conditional conclusion.
P1: smokers given the main ingredient in NoSmoke reported no decrease in cravings for cigarettes
P2: NoSmoke has only two ingredients
C: If similar results are found for the second ingredient, they can conclude that NoSmoke does not reduce smokers' cravings

So there are 2 ingredient and one of them does not decrease cravings for cigarettes, and if the other one does not either, it means the product does not reduce the cravings at all.
This seems traditional whole/parts flaw questions.
I understand that but sometimes I'm just not sure how it is a flaw...if EVERY parts of the whole has a characteristic, the whole seems has the characteristic too, bc it consists of those EVERY things. Is it a flaw because as a whole they can alter some characteristic? Would you give me an example?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

Yes, the example is that if you mix red and blue you get purple, or if you mix flour and water, you get a paste. Two ingredients combined can create a third feature that does not exist for either single ingredient alone. This argument assumes that the ingredients combine must not possess any new quality that the ingredients separately do not have.