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.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(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.
In essence, the argument says we can not infer w from x because the w could be just a different characteristic of x and not a second effect. the effect that describes x is y. We need to recognize the cause, first effect and second effect in answer choices and find the choice that shows that the second effect is actually something in the cause.
A) Looks promising: the donor defines the society, and the second inference is different but volunteers is just a feature of the society
B) here there is a causal logic but the birth effect is not a characteristic of the material
C) No second and different effect
D) No inference that entirely defines the cause
E) There is no other inference or second effect
I would go with A