divyansh843
Why is D wrong... If other studies have shown similar results then this strengthens the author's conclusion
Against A, the choice says that they have controlled other factors but not all factors. So there is a possibility that other factors may have an effect on weight
Posted from my mobile deviceTwo things to watch for:
This question is making a classic error--moving from correlation to causation. We accept the study that found a connection between using public transportation and being overweight. What we don't have to accept is the conclusion, which says that using public transportation CONTRIBUTES to a gain in weight. What if the causation goes the other way, and people who are overweight are simply more likely to choose the bus? It could also be more complicated. For instance, maybe people who ride the bus have lower incomes, and thus don't have as much time and money to put into exercise, etc.? We don't need to figure all that out, nor do we have to assume that being overweight has a behavioral cause. Maybe it's all the the genes! We just have to identify that we don't know which way the causation runs. If we can rule out some other potential causes of the difference in weight, then that strengthens the idea that using the bus is the cause.
So why does D fail? Because it just supports the premise we've already accepted--that these factors are linked. We already knew that! It doesn't tell us anything about the CAUSE behind this link, so it does nothing for our argument. We often call this kind of statement a "premise booster," since it's just supporting the premise, and we already believe the premise by default.
One other note: the goal here is just to strengthen, not to prove, so we need to apply that same standard to all answers. We can't cut A because it doesn't cover *everything.* None of the answers do, and in fact you'll almost never find a strengthen answer that fills all the holes in the argument.