People who regularly use sunscreen are more likely to be diagnosed

Question

People who regularly use sunscreen are more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer than are people who do not use sunscreen.  Therefore, the use of sunscreen is a cause of melanoma.

The questionable pattern of reasoning above is most similar to which of the following?

A. Some non-smokers suffer from emphysema.  Therefore, smoking is not a cause of emphysema.

B. Water-resistant sunscreen is more likely to be used by athletes playing outdoor sports in hot weather conditions than by members of the general public. Consequently, most buyers of water-resistant sunscreen are athletes.

C. Because some individuals are genetically inclined to obesity and obesity can result in type 2 diabetes, any individual who is genetically inclined to obesity will inevitably suffer from type 2 diabetes.

D. Reliance on blood pressure medication increases the risk of a heart attack, because those who take such medication are more likely to suffer a heart attack than are those who do not.

E. Melanoma skin cancer can be caused by Ultraviolet A radiation.  Therefore, melanoma skin cancer cannot be caused by Ultraviolet B radiation.

ShenotShih1017 · Answer

The argument is a correlation=causation fallacy that fails to consider a third factor:
 Essentially 'A is correlated with B, therefore A causes B'

A. Some non-smokers suffer from emphysema. Therefore, smoking is not a cause of emphysema
The fallacy here is more along the lines of assuming that because smoking is not always the cause of emphysema, it cannot be A cause of emphysema. Not similar to the argument in the question stem.

B. Water-resistant sunscreen is more likely to be used by athletes playing outdoor sports in hot weather conditions than by members of the general public. Consequently, most buyers of water-resistant sunscreen are athletes.
The fallacy in this one is more along the lines of 'A greater proportion of one group (which has an unknown size) exhibit some behavior than another group (again with an unknown size), therefore most of the people who exhibit this behavior are in group A. This fails to take into account the sizes of the populations. A fallacy, but again not similar to the argument.

C. Because some individuals are genetically inclined to obesity and obesity can result in type 2 diabetes, any individual who is genetically inclined to obesity will inevitably suffer from type 2 diabetes.
The fallacy here is assuming that because X CAN lead to Y, X WILL lead to Y. Not similar to the argument in question.

D. Reliance on blood pressure medication increases the risk of a heart attack, because those who take such medication are more likely to suffer a heart attack than are those who do not.
The fallacy here is concluding that blood pressure causes an increased risk of heart attack, because people who take blood pressure meds are more likely to have heart attacks than are those who do not.  This is pointing out a correlation, and claiming one factor causes another while conveniently ignoring other factors which may be causing both, or the fact that they have the causal relationship backwards 
 D is the correct answer.

E. Melanoma skin cancer can be caused by Ultraviolet A radiation. Therefore, melanoma skin cancer cannot be caused by Ultraviolet B radiation.
This is kind of similar to option C, the fallacy is assuming that because A causes skin cancer, something else CANNOT ALSO cause skin cancer. Unrelated to the argument in the question

Karanrev · Answer

Can you please explain why D is the answer? As it does not say that A causes B, it just implies that A is more likely to have B, which is completely different from the first argument, which is cause and effect relationship

guddo · Answer

I’d say the key is the  first clause of (D) : “Reliance on blood pressure medication  increases the risk of a heart attack .” That  is  a causal claim.

The second clause, “those who take such medication are more likely to suffer a heart attack,” is merely the correlation used as evidence.

So (D) has exactly the same flawed structure as the original:  A and B are correlated, therefore A causes B .

KarishmaB · Answer

First identify the flaw, the questionable pattern of the original argument.

People who regularly use sunscreen are more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer than are people who do not use sunscreen.

- that there is a correlation between 'using sunscreen' and 'melanoma'

Therefore, the use of sunscreen is a cause of melanoma. 
 - So sunscreen causes melanoma.

The flaw is that the author gives us a correlation in the premise but concludes a causation from it. Just because A and B exist together, it doesn't mean that A causes B. It is possible that B causes A or that C causes both A and B. 
So Correlation does not lead to causation.

D. Reliance on blood pressure medication increases the risk of a heart attack, because those who take such medication are more likely to suffer a heart attack than are those who do not.

those who take such medication are more likely to suffer a heart attack than are those who do not  
- gives correlation between BP medicine and heart attack.

Reliance on blood pressure medication increases the risk of a heart attack 
 - BP med increases the risk of heart attack. Says that higher risk is because of BP med.

So the error here is the same. Correlation has been taken to be causation.

Answer (D)

egmat · Answer

Hi Karanrev,

Good instinct to line up the logic word for word. The reason D still matches is that  D actually contains both pieces  - a correlation  and  a causal claim - just in the reverse order from the original.

Look at how the original is built:

-  Premise (correlation):  sunscreen users are "more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma."
-  Conclusion (cause):  "the use of sunscreen  is a cause  of melanoma."

Now read D carefully:

-  Conclusion (cause):  "Reliance on blood pressure medication  increases the risk  of a heart attack" - that  is  a causal claim.
-  Premise (correlation):  " because  those who take such medication are  more likely  to suffer a heart attack than are those who do not."

So D isn't just saying "more likely." The phrase you're keying on is the  premise , and the word "because" links it to a causal conclusion. Both arguments do the exact same thing: take a bare correlation and declare it a cause, while ignoring the real driver (heavy sun exposure in one; the high blood pressure that made people take the drug in the other).

The only thing that threw you is  word order  - the original puts the correlation first and the cause last, while D states the cause first and the correlation after "because."

Turn one knob to see they're identical.  Rewrite D in the original's order:

"People who take blood pressure medication are more likely to suffer a heart attack than those who don't.  Therefore , the medication is a cause of heart attacks."

That's now word-for-word the sunscreen structure. Same flaw, same match.

Answer: D

People who regularly use sunscreen are more likely to be diagnosed

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

­People who regularly use sunscreen are more likely to be diagnosed

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

People who regularly use sunscreen are more likely to be diagnosed