Question

Tall children can generally reach high shelves easily. Short children can generally reach high shelves only with difficulty. It is known that short children are more likely than are tall children to become short adults. Therefore, if short children are taught to reach high shelves easily, the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease. A reasoning error in the argument is that the argument (A) attributes a characteristic of an individual member of a group to the group as a whole (B) presupposes that which is to be proved (C) refutes a generalization by means of an exceptional case (D) assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated (E) takes lack of evidence for the existence of a state of affairs as evidence that there can be no such state of affairs

Short answer

(D) assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument

The argument suggests that if short children learn to reach high shelves easily, then fewer of them will grow up to be short adults. The underlying assumption is that there is a causal relationship between the difficulty in reaching high shelves and becoming a short adult.

Identifying the Reasoning Error

The argument makes a leap from recognizing a correlation (short children have difficulty reaching shelves and tend to remain short) to implying a causal relationship (teaching them to reach shelves will alter their development to not being short adults).

Evaluating the Options

(A) talks about attributing a characteristic of an individual to a group, which is not relevant here. (B) suggests circular reasoning, which is not present. (C) speaks about an exceptional case, which is not applicable. (D) suggests that the argument assumes a causal relationship without proof, closely matching the reasoning error identified. (E) discusses lack of evidence for a state of affairs, which is unrelated to the problem.

Choosing the Correct Option

Option (D) - 'assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated' accurately describes the error in reasoning within the argument.

Key concepts

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is about using structured thinking to evaluate arguments or make decisions. When dealing with logical reasoning, we need to ensure our conclusions flow directly from the premises given. This involves analyzing each component of the argument to make sure that it makes sense and does not involve any leaps in logic.
This type of reasoning helps identify how well premises support a conclusion. If there are gaps between the premises and the conclusion, the logic may be flawed.

• Be wary of assumptions that lack support.
• Test if the premises logically lead to the conclusion.
• Check for any hidden or unnecessary assumptions.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves dissecting the elements of an argument to understand its strengths and weaknesses. This process begins with understanding the main claim, followed by examining the supporting premises.
Starting with a clear identification of the conclusion and reviewing each statement that supports it, you can assess whether the conclusion is valid. By laying out these parts, you clarify not only what the argument is asserting but also whether it does so convincingly.

• Identify the conclusion first.
• Review each supporting premise for validity and relevance.
• Determine if the evidence directly supports the conclusion.

Causal Fallacy

A causal fallacy occurs when a presumed cause-and-effect relationship is assumed without proper justification. Often, people mistake correlation (where two things occur together) for causation (where one thing directly causes the other).
In the original exercise, the argument assumed that teaching short children to reach high shelves might make them less likely to be short adults. This highlights a common causal fallacy: jumping to conclusions without evidence that one event causes another.

• Do not assume causation with only correlation.
• Look for actual evidence that supports the cause-and-effect relationship.
• Consider alternative explanations for the observed phenomenon.

Correlation vs Causation

Understanding the difference between correlation and causation is crucial in logical reasoning and argument analysis. Correlation means there is a relationship between two events, while causation states that one event is the direct result of the other.
In our case, short children having difficulty reaching shelves is correlated with them later becoming short adults. This does not mean that addressing the issue of reaching shelves will cause a change in their adult height.
Properly distinguishing these two ideas avoids common errors in reasoning and strengthens the argument analysis process.

• Correlation: Two events occur together and may or may not be related.
• Causation: One event directly leads to or influences another.
• Always assess the evidence before concluding causation.