Anthony: It has been established that over 80 percent of those who use

Question

Anthony: It has been established that over 80 percent of those who use heroin have a history of having used marijuana. Such evidence would seem to prove that smoking marijuana definitely leads to heroin use.

Judith: Maybe smoking marijuana does lead to heroin use, but it is absurd to think that citing those statistics proves that it does. After all, 100 percent of the people who take up heroin had a previous history of drinking water.

Judith's reply to Anthony's argument relies on which one of the following argumentative strategies?

(A) offering evidence suggesting that the statistics Anthony cites in support of his conclusion are inaccurate

(B) undermining the credibility of his conclusion by showing that it is a statement from which absurd consequences can be derived

(C) providing an example to show that not everything that promotes heroin use is unsafe

(D) demonstrating that Anthony's line of reasoning is flawed by showing that such reasoning can lead to clearly false conclusions

(E) calling into question the possibility of ever establishing causal connections solely on the basis of statistical evidence

This question is from Kaplan Mastery for LSAT. Have attached the OA. But need you guys to explain if you got the question correct, why did you choose the answer. Please help on this question as i am stuck. I cant bring myself to agree with OA.

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

Hi  debbiem ,

lets see the choices and the terms used in them..
(A) offering evidence suggesting that the statistics Anthony cites in support of his conclusion are inaccurate
 the info is a general statement and is not evidence, so you can eliminate it

(B) undermining the credibility of his conclusion by showing that it is a statement from which absurd consequences can be derived
 a choice one can get trapped into..
the absurd consequences are derived from reasoning and not the CONCLUSION..
Rather the conclusion itself is that consequence..

(C) providing an example to show that not everything that promotes heroin use is unsafe 
 Out of context

(D) demonstrating that Anthony's line of reasoning is flawed by showing that such reasoning can lead to clearly false conclusions
 Once we know the flaw is in reasoning, this should come out as a correct answer

(E) calling into question the possibility of ever establishing causal connections solely on the basis of statistical evidence
 the word EVER makes it extreme. He is not proving these, he is interested in showing the reasoning to be flawed

Sneha333 · Answer

Answer choice D:demonstrating that Anthony's line of reasoning is flawed by showing that such reasoning can lead to clearly false conclusions-->clearly false conclusion is not what Judith said.Judith agrees that it could be the reason.

E is a better answer.

E is a better answer.

Saasingh · Answer

GMATNinja

Can you please address how D is correct?
I rejected D because it states "such reasoning can lead to clearly false conclusions". The clearly false conclusion jumped right at me since Judith doesn't say the conclusion is clearly false. He rather says that conclusion may be true however,... and then goes on to provide reasons.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

Answer option (D) does not state that "the conclusion is clearly false" as you have put it. It states that the " reasoning  can lead to clearly false conclusions". In other words, the logic applied to arrive at the conclusion can also be applied to arrive at clearly false conclusions, and hence the logic is flawed.

This is exactly what is happening in the stimulus. Anthony reasons that since a vast majority of heroin users also use marijuana, it proves that "smoking marijuana definitely leads to heroin use". Judith shows that the same logic, that not just a vast majority but every single heroin user also consumes water, and questions (unstated) whether we can conclude that consuming water leads to heroin use. Hence option (D) is the correct answer.

Hope this helps.

mukherjeeabhish · Answer

Although I marked D, can anyone explain how do we eliminate E ?

Arielltl · Answer

(E)  calling into question the possibility  of ever establishing causal connections solely on the basis of statistical evidence

I think she did not call into question the possibility, she directly reject/weaken Anthony's false conclusion.

bidskamikaze · Answer

(E) calling into question the possibility of   ever   establishing causal connections solely on the basis of statistical evidence

Notice the word   EVER   in option E. 
Is Judith trying to prove that causal connections can   NEVER   be established solely on the basis of statistical evidence ? Clearly not!
The use of the word "EVER" renders this option extreme and incorrect.

Elite097 · Answer

Why not E?
E: "Calling into question the possibility of ever establishing causal connections solely on the basis of statistical evidence."

This option is broader than Judith's argument. Judith is not questioning all causal connections based on statistical evidence; she is questioning Anthony’s specific reasoning that marijuana leads to heroin use based on his cited statistic. Her argument focuses on the flawed logic in Anthony's reasoning rather than challenging the validity of causal inference as a general principle.

Why not B?
B: "Undermining the credibility of his conclusion by showing that it is a statement from which absurd consequences can be derived."

While Judith points out an absurd consequence (that drinking water could also be linked to heroin use), she doesn’t directly attack Anthony’s conclusion (that marijuana leads to heroin use). Instead, she focuses on the reasoning Anthony uses to arrive at his conclusion. Her point is that Anthony’s line of reasoning is flawed because it could justify absurd conclusions, like water leading to heroin use.

Why D is Correct:
D: "Demonstrating that Anthony's line of reasoning is flawed by showing that such reasoning can lead to clearly false conclusions."

Judith demonstrates the flaw in Anthony’s reasoning by using the water example. She shows that Anthony’s logic (marijuana use precedes heroin use, so marijuana causes heroin use) could lead to the absurd and false conclusion that drinking water causes heroin use. This directly critiques Anthony’s reasoning process, not just his conclusion.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Anthony: It has been established that over 80 percent of those who use

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Anthony: It has been established that over 80 percent of those who use

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards