Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel

Yes the correlation that staying longer in contact with teeth increases the likelihood that a cavity will be created holds true for pretzel. the author uses the same correlation with caramel. Therefore the criticism of the above argument is best explained by A.

Hi Guys,

Let me know if this helps... The wording is of course very tricky and requires constant interpretation. But the important thing to take note of is that this a an argument by analogy. The conclusion that a caramel is less likely to lead to a cavity is based on the assumption that duration of contact is the only factor in developing a cavity, as is the case with the pretzel.

In D, we need to 'translate' to see that this doesn't make sense:

the cause: duration of contact
the effect: developing a cavity

In no way is the duration of contact mistaken for developing a cavity.

If this helped, kindly give Kudos!

cause ==> duration of contact with teeth
effect ==> greater cavity

Author is saying because caramel dissolves in mouth faster than pretzel, caramel will not stay for a longer duration in mouth and hence will not cause greater cavity.

option (D) says the reasoning is wrong because it mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon (duration of contact with teeth) for the effect of that phenomenon (greater cavity) but that is not what the argument is saying or doing.

Instead the arugment says that because pretzel stays in the mouth for a longer duration it causes greater cavity and because caramel will stay in the mouth for less time it will cause less cavity (treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well) .

I still could not understand why A is the OA.

Also no option is looking good to answer. Experts, pl provide explanation.

What is the source of the ques

Type of question in which we know the gap in reasoning but can't quite point it in answers due to confusing language.

How is the answer choice C incorrect?
I can eliminate the answer choices B, D, and E. However, I finally choose C.

Couldn't put a finger on any of the choices...what are these "categories"?

(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent

I couldn't eliminate C, it seems awfully similar to option A.
So author uses Pretzel as an example and made a claim that duration affects cavity, but it does not represent the case in caramel (which is the respective class). How is it wrong?

Hi nightblade354, mira93, carouselambra,

Shouldn't this be 'flaw in reasoning' question than 'Weaken' question?
Please help with correcting the tag.

Could someone explain why is c incorrect?

Posted from my mobile device

Conclusion " eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is."
Author arrives this conclusion by correlation.

The Longer Pretzels remains in contact with teeth- Greater the likelihood of the cavity.

Pretzels(P) are similar to Caramels(C) in this regard.

The Lesser Caramel remains in contact with teeth lesser the likelihood of a cavity.

But the clear flaw in the reasoning is may be P and C are similar but the correlation between P and Cavity cannot be drawn accross C and Cavity.

(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
There is no ambiguous use of a key term even if we do not about terms like "cavity", "pretzels" or "Caramels" Argument can still be true. Argument does not depends on the key terms.

(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
"makes a general claim based on particular examples" - Correct a General claim that "The Lesser Caramel remains in contact with teeth lesser the likelihood of a cavity" is made as a conclusion by the author . But the second half of the sentence "do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent". We cannot say only these two adequately represent or does not represent the respective class. Author does not based the argument on sample size of these two.

(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
Author Says If A occurs more frequently than likelihood of B occurrence is also more.  Here A - Pretzel contact with teeth and B- cavity
A and C are similar. C- Caramel contact with teeth
Now If C occurs less frequently than likelihood of B occurrence is also less.
There is no mistake in the cause and effect, Since A and C can individually leads to more or less likelihood of B. Author argument is based on since A and C are correlated therefore likelihood of more or less B depends on this coorelation.

E) is based on premises that cannot all be true
Keyword is "all". We cannot say that this all can or cannot be true. May be some part of it can be true.Also the premise in the passage is generally true, otherwise the conclusion cannot be drawn based on the premise.

(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
A - Pretzel contact with teeth, B- Cavity and C- Caramel contact with teeth
More A causes more likelihood of B. Correlation in individual category of A
A and C are related.
Less C causes less likelihood of B. Correlation in individual category of C.
Why? A and C are similar. Author assumes what is true for "A and C" should also be true for "B and C". Author is treating a correaltion in individual category of A as holding accross individual category of C. This is the flaw in the author's reasoning.­