#8 - Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer is choice (E)

The conclusion in the stimulus is that nonsmokers have their first heart attack eleven years later than people who smoke. This conclusion is based on the median ages collected from people who survived a first heart attack.

Answer choice (A): Knowing severity does not affect the argument or the conclusion about the critical onset numbers.

Answer choice (B): After-the-fact information about those suffering heart attacks has no bearing on onset of the first attack.

Answer choice (C): Again, we are concerned about the people who survived a first attack. We have no interest in those who suffered a second heart attack.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus is only concerned with the broad categories of smokers versus nonsmokers. The age at which smokers had their first cigarette has no impact.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This directly calls into question the conclusion. The information use in the stimulus only contains those who survive a first attack, but the conclusion makes a sweeping generalization about onset age for all people. Excluding people who die from their first heart attack may significantly change these numbers. For example, imagine that nonsmokers who died of their first heart attack had a median age of forty-five and smokers who died of their first heart attack had a median age of sixty. This would significantly change the conclusion.

[annaolchy]

Hi,

Could you please explain why E is the correct answer? To me, E is not relevant to the conclusion because the conclusion is referring to the age a heart attack happens for smokers vs. non smokers. Those who died earlier (whether smoker or nonsmoker) does not seem relevant to the conclusion because the conclusion is talking about "a first heart attack" not "survival".

Thanks,
Anna

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Anna!

Whenever you're doing a Flaw question, first identify the conclusion and the premises, then determine why those premises as stated do not fully support the conclusion as stated. Here, the conclusion is that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. This conclusion is based on data which is only about people who survive a first heart attack. If we're going to make a conclusion about when people have their first heart attacks, we need data not just on the people who survived the first heart attack, but also on the people who did not survive their first heart attack. Basically we need data on ALL people who have their first heart attacks, survivors and non-survivors. But the stimulus only gives us the data on the survivors. So the flaw is that the author is making a general conclusion about when people (both smokers and nonsmokers) have their first heart attacks, but we only have data on when survivors (both smokers and nonsmokers) have their first heart attacks; we don't have any data on when non-survivors (both smokers and nonsmokers) have their first heart attacks. Answer choice (E) points out this flaw by saying the information in the premises does not include data on people who did not survive the first heart attack. For our conclusion, we need BOTH the data on people who survived the first heart attack as well as the data those who didn't survive and we only have data on the survivors.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[KG!]

Hi! Thanks for the great explanations above! I did not choose E because it seems as if the conclusion is written in a way that only discusses those who survived therefore E would not be necessary. I sort of understand the explanation, but what would help me is figuring out what type of flaw is happening in the stimulus. I would call it an over generalization. Is there a way to get more specific? or have more detail with questions like this that include conclusions about studies.

Thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

KG!,

The premises are limited to people who survived their first heart attack, but the conclusion is not so limited, and that's the problem with the argument - the premises are about a subset of the people the conclusion is about.

This is definitely an Overgeneralization Flaw, and there's no need to get more specific - in fact, to add detail to a flaw defeats the purpose of identifying it. Overgeneralization is bad no matter what the context is, so the context is irrelevant to describing the flaw. We discuss this flaw in our course materials, and it's a pretty common one on the test, especially when there is a survey of some sort.

Robert Carroll

[KG!]

KG!,

The premises are limited to people who survived their first heart attack, but the conclusion is not so limited, and that's the problem with the argument - the premises are about a subset of the people the conclusion is about.

This is definitely an Overgeneralization Flaw, and there's no need to get more specific - in fact, to add detail to a flaw defeats the purpose of identifying it. Overgeneralization is bad no matter what the context is, so the context is irrelevant to describing the flaw. We discuss this flaw in our course materials, and it's a pretty common one on the test, especially when there is a survey of some sort.

Robert Carroll

This makes senses thank you!!