Bunuel wrote:
Beautiful beaches attract people, no doubt about it. Just look at this city's beautiful beaches, which are among the most overcrowded beaches in the state.
Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to the one exhibited in the argument above?
(A) Moose and bear usually appear at the same drinking hole at the same time of day. Therefore, moose and bear must grow thirsty at about the same time.
(B) Children who are scolded severely tend to misbehave more often than other children. Hence if a child is not scolded severely that child is less likely to misbehave.
(C) This computer program helps increase the work efficiency of its users. As a result, these users have more free time for other activities.
(D) During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas more so than during cooler weather. Therefore, fleas must thrive in a warm environment.
(E) Pesticides are known to cause anemia in some people. However, most anemic people live in regions where pesticides are not commonly used.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The correct response is (D). The original argument bases a conclusion that one phenomenon causes another on an observed correlation between the two phenomena. The argument boils down to the following:
Premise: X (beautiful beach) is correlated with Y (crowd of people).
Conclusion: X (beautiful beach) causes Y (crowd of people).
Answer choice (D) demonstrates the same pattern of reasoning:
Premise: X (warm weather) is correlated with Y (fleas).
Conclusion: X (warm weather) causes Y (fleas).
(A) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (moose at the drinking hole) is correlated with Y (bears at the drinking hole).
Conclusion: X (moose) and Y (bear) are both caused by Z (thirst).
(B) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (scolding children) is correlated with Y (misbehavior among children).
Assumption: Either X causes Y, or Y causes X.
Conclusion: Not X (no scolding) will be correlated with not Y (no misbehavior).
(C) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument:
Premise: X (computer program) causes Y (efficiency).
Assumption: Y (efficiency) causes Z (free time).
Conclusion: X (computer program) causes Z (free time).
(E) demonstrates a different pattern of reasoning than the original argument. In fact, (E) is not a complete argument; it contains two premises but no conclusion:
Premise: X (pesticides) causes Y (anemia).
Premise: Not X (pesticide-free regions) is correlated with Y (anemia).