|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 100
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]
 07 Mar 2006, 10:30
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital. x
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect. x
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 580
Location: NYC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
I am lost between effect and cause.. ahh..
_________________
Success is my only option, failure is not -- Eminem
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: CA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
I am lost too but will pick D if I have to 
The argument seems make fallacy that: "an effect different than observed one" necessarily means "different characteristics of the cause".
D is similar when the effect "more fund received" is necessarily caused by a different cause "more civic minded".
_________________
Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 634
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 0
|
As I am not able to get the exact flaw in the argument, I will try to eliminate the choices:
In A, C and D the reasoning is the same. A fact is stated and the persona makes a deduction. So these 3 choices are out !
B states a reasoning like :
X causes Y
Y causes Z
so
X causes Z
This does not seem to be in accordance with the original argument. Thus, I pick ^ E ^
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 259
Location: New York City, USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Between B and E, I would go for B.
The flawed logic goes 'second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect'.
So radioactive mat'l causes genetic mutation which in turn causes birth defect. So radioactive mat'l causes birth defect is flawed.
In E, the same cause X (heating) gives multiple effects (evaporates water, 100 other liquids). So one cause-one effect relationship is not there.
- Vipin
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 1
|
I believe it should be A 
Here's my explaination :
Let A be the cause and B be its particular effect & C a secondary effect.
The first line then states that it is illogical for A(cause) to have C as an effect since it has B as its one particular effect.
The second line then negates the first line saying that C can be an effect due to some other characteristics of A(cause), other than that which is causing B.
Thus A(cause) can result in both B and C as 2 different effects.
In option A :
' gave a thousand dollars to our historical society '------>B(particular effect)
' also volunteers at the children’s hospital '----------------->C(secondary effect)
Thus A(cause) can result in both B and C as 2 different effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 588
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
nerve wracking. E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 100
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
buzzgaurav wrote: I believe it should be A Here's my explaination : Let A be the cause and B be its particular effect & C a secondary effect. The first line then states that it is illogical for A(cause) to have C as an effect since it has B as its one particular effect. The second line then negates the first line saying that C can be an effect due to some other characteristics of A(cause), other than that which is causing B. Thus A(cause) can result in both B and C as 2 different effects.In option A : ' gave a thousand dollars to our historical society '------>B(particular effect) ' also volunteers at the children’s hospital '----------------->C(secondary effect) Thus A(cause) can result in both B and C as 2 different effects.But isnt this NOT following the error?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 19
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with D
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 1
|
hellom3p wrote: buzzgaurav wrote: I believe it should be A Here's my explaination : Let A be the cause and B be its particular effect & C a secondary effect. The first line then states that it is illogical for A(cause) to have C as an effect since it has B as its one particular effect. The second line then negates the first line saying that C can be an effect due to some other characteristics of A(cause), other than that which is causing B. Thus A(cause) can result in both B and C as 2 different effects.In option A : ' gave a thousand dollars to our historical society '------>B(particular effect) ' also volunteers at the children’s hospital '----------------->C(secondary effect) Thus A(cause) can result in both B and C as 2 different effects.But isnt this NOT following the error? Picked Up this explaination from somewhere :
The author argues that a "cause" cannot be attributed to two effects as any effect other than the observed one can be explained by some characteristic of the cause which means there is only one cause.
Argument A proceeds similarly by attributing the second of the two actions to the same person since that person performed the first action.
My conclusion in both the cases also states the same.
Guess this helps, nice question nonetheless.
BTW I'm not that good at CR 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 91
Location: Minneapolis
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
hellom3p wrote: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital. x
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect. x
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate.
I will go with B
I am searching for the observed effect for which there is only one cause. A, C, D and E sound like an effect with multiple causes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 100
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
OA is A
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1913
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 0
|
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
The reasoning of the argument is : we know an effect of X ---> we can describe X ( not clearly points out whether we can describe entirely X) ----> we know X ---> we know another effect of X.
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital. x
----> due to the act of the donor ----> he's humanitarian ----> thus, he does other kind of donation. ---> similar to the reasoning of the argument.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect. x
-----> X causes Y, Y causes Z ---> X causes Z ---> this is a bridging logic ----> not similar to the original reasoning.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
----> "unseen" somehow means "complex" ---> "complex structure" means "unseen structures" ---> somewhat logical --> not as flawed as the original reasoning.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
----> This one is somewhat similar to original reasoning but the reasoning here stops at : we know the effect of X ---> we know X.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate
----> the reasoning here is: we know X, we know X 1, we know X2, we know X100 ----> we know the entire set of X ----> different from that of original reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
