LSAT-14-2-20【pretzel】讨论过

pocahontas

20. Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.

The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well

(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term

(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent

(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon

(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true

the key's A. 文中已经说了 What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels.，为什么还要选A呢？

lawyer_1

原文给的规律（接触牙齿时间越长，蛀齿的可能性越大）是P或C内部个体间的规律，P和C之间是否有这规律原文没说，所以知道C比P接触时间短，并不能知道蛀齿的可能性小。即C。将某类内部的比较当成类之间的规律进行比较。

pocahontas

哦！想通了！thax!!

Bensontuo

pocahontas 发表于 2004-8-1 07:41
20. Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with th ...

Spot the question type: Method of the reasoning - Flaw.

Core of the argument.

A cause B, because more A behaves C on T, more B will happen in T. So, Ca behaves less C on T because of D, so, less B will happen in T.

What are the flaws we can spot ?

1. Correlation never proves causation

2. one thing is sufficient  for A to lead to the necessary condition of the variation be treated as without that thing, the necessary condition would not happen. Mistaken Negate.

3. Ignores the fact that A & Ca are different objects and might interact with T differently.

Let us dive into the answers.

A. It does sounds like the combination of 1 and 3. Lets leave it.

B. There is no any ambiguous terms.

C. It does not make a general claim; instead, it cite the example from one of the characteristic of A to conclude that without that characteristic, Ca will not do as what does.

D.  There is no any reverse of cause - effect relationship flaw here.

E.   Its not the " flaw " it committed. Its the false assumption it makes.

Let us go back to A, perfect answer.