The moisture content of wood is measured by the weight of water

Question

The moisture content of wood is measured by the weight of water as a percentage of the oven-dry weight of the wood fiber. The key to controlling decay is to control moisture. Once decay fungi are established, the minimum moisture content for decay to occur is easily propagated. Not surprisingly, if homeowners control moisture, they will prevent wood decay.

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

(A) confuses the meaning of the key term “decay”
(B) makes a broad assertion from only a limited sample of information
(C) treats a common cause of a problem as though it were the only cause of that problem
(D) unfairly describes a problem to make it easier to attack
(E) confuses the cause of the problem with the effect of the problem

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

VivekSri · Answer

The moisture content of wood is measured by the weight of water as a percentage of the oven-dry weight of the wood fiber. The key to controlling decay is to control moisture. Once decay fungi are established, the minimum moisture content for decay to occur is easily propagated. Not surprisingly, if homeowners control moisture, they will prevent wood decay.

This is the classic question and it works on below parallel reasoning :  
  If we throw stones then water spills this does not mean that if water spills, then we have thrown stones. There are can be many reason of water spills.

Let us take the example present in Question->   The key to control decay is to control moisture. This doesn't mean that If we only control moisture, then will be no decay .

This is clearly stated in C.

Calista_Pro · Answer

I don't understand why it can not be E, can someone explain the difference between C & E?
Thank you!!

WhitEngagePrep · Answer

First let's breakdown the argument: Moisture content = water weight ÷ oven-dry fiber weight." (This is background / definition; irrelevant to flaw.) The key to controlling decay is to control moisture.” (This is a causal claim: high moisture → decay risk.) Once decay fungi are established, the minimum moisture content for decay to occur is easily propagated.” (This implies that decay can persist even when moisture is reduced; fungal presence now matters.) If homeowners control moisture, they will prevent wood decay.” ( Conclusion: Strong guarantee; moisture control alone is sufficient for prevention.) So the key is noticing that absolute language in the conclusion - fix this ONE thing and you will cure the problem. You asked about (E) so let's start there: (E) Confuses the cause of the problem with the effect of the problem. To earn (E), the stimulus would need to reverse or muddle causal direction, for example by treating decay (or fungi) as what actually creates the moisture problem when in fact moisture enabled the decay. The actual argument does not claim that “decay causes moisture”; it stays on “moisture → decay,” then just overstates sufficiency. So (E) doesn’t fit well (C) Treats a common cause of a problem as though it were the only cause of that problem. Moisture is a major enabling condition for wood decay. But the passage itself concedes another contributor: established decay fungi can help sustain the moisture conditions needed for continued decay—even if external moisture is reduced. By concluding moisture control guarantees prevention, the argument ignores other causal and sustaining factors (existing fungal colonies, wood species, temperature, oxygen, prior damage, etc.). Classic “single-cause” overreach. This captures the flaw more precisely than (E). So what would an argument look like where E was correct? It might be something like the following: People who are depressed often sleep poorly. (observation of a correlation) Therefore poor sleep must be caused by depression . (claim about the direction of the causation → here is the flaw noted in E) So if we cure depression, we’ll fix people’s sleep. (the conclusion is now based on flawed logic about cause and effect) In this case, it could be that depression causes poor sleep, but it could also be the other way around, something else could cause both (maybe an illness), or it could be a feedback loop where they cause each other in a cycle. But the flaw is getting the cause and effect mixed up. That isn't what is happening in the wood decay argument, hence why E is wrong. Hope this helps!

Whit

The moisture content of wood is measured by the weight of water

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

The moisture content of wood is measured by the weight of water

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