- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:35 pm
#66041
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw-X, CE. The correct answer choice is (A).
This is a Flaw-X question, meaning that four incorrect answer choices will describe flaws in the argument and the one correct answer choice will not describe a flaw in the argument. With Except questions, it is generally easier to prephrase and identify the incorrect answers and arrive at the correct answer through process of elimination.
When looking for flaws in arguments, identify the conclusion and the premises and ask yourself, why don't these premises fully prove this conclusion? Here our argument can be distilled as follows:
Conclusion: Heating pads more effective than stretching at relieving lower back pain
Premise: An athlete had back pain that lasted for days when she was stretching, but disappeared after a few days with a heating pad
Why don't the premises fully prove the conclusion? Since this is a Flaw-X question, we know that there must be multiple flaws in this argument. One big problem with this argument stems from causal reasoning. The author assumes that the heating pad caused the pain to go away and the stretching did not, when really the pain may have just gotten better over time, regardless of any specific treatments. Another major problem with this argument is that it takes the experience of one athlete who has suffered one specific cause of back pain and generalizes it to relieving back pain in general. So answer choices which address the errors in causal reasoning or the overgeneralizations the author is making will describe flaws with the argument and will, therefore, be incorrect. We are looking for the answer choice which does NOT describe a flaw in the argument.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. This answer choice does not describe a flaw in the argument. Technically, the argument does fail to consider that heating pads may be less effective than stretching at helping to heal the underlying injury responsible for the pain. But the conclusion is simply that heating pads are generally more effective than stretching at relieving lower back pain. There is nothing in this conclusion about helping to heal the underlying injury responsible for the pain. So failing to consider this possibility is not a flaw in the argument. Remember that in Flaw questions, answer choices can be true of the argument, but not describe a flaw in the argument. It is true that the argument fails to consider what might be most effective for healing the underlying injury responsible for the pain, but since the conclusion is only about what is most effective for relieving the pain, then it is not a flaw to not consider what would be most effective for healing the underlying injury.
Answer choice (B): This describes the causal flaw discussed above.The argument fails to consider that the back pain might go away after several days regardless of any treatments the athlete uses. It might not be that the heating pad caused the pain to go away; instead, it might be that the time elapsed caused the pain to go away.
Answer choice (C): This describes the overgeneralization flaw discussed above. The experience of one athlete should not be generalized to the entire population.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice also gets at the ways in which this argument overgeneralizes. Again, our premise describes only have one specific experience with one specific type of back pain. We can't generalize that to all back pain in the way the conclusion does.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice addresses yet another way in which this argument overgeneralizes based on one experience. There are many different ways of stretching and it may not be fair to say that heating pads are generally more effective than all forms of stretching when our athlete may have only used a very specific form of stretching.
Flaw-X, CE. The correct answer choice is (A).
This is a Flaw-X question, meaning that four incorrect answer choices will describe flaws in the argument and the one correct answer choice will not describe a flaw in the argument. With Except questions, it is generally easier to prephrase and identify the incorrect answers and arrive at the correct answer through process of elimination.
When looking for flaws in arguments, identify the conclusion and the premises and ask yourself, why don't these premises fully prove this conclusion? Here our argument can be distilled as follows:
Conclusion: Heating pads more effective than stretching at relieving lower back pain
Premise: An athlete had back pain that lasted for days when she was stretching, but disappeared after a few days with a heating pad
Why don't the premises fully prove the conclusion? Since this is a Flaw-X question, we know that there must be multiple flaws in this argument. One big problem with this argument stems from causal reasoning. The author assumes that the heating pad caused the pain to go away and the stretching did not, when really the pain may have just gotten better over time, regardless of any specific treatments. Another major problem with this argument is that it takes the experience of one athlete who has suffered one specific cause of back pain and generalizes it to relieving back pain in general. So answer choices which address the errors in causal reasoning or the overgeneralizations the author is making will describe flaws with the argument and will, therefore, be incorrect. We are looking for the answer choice which does NOT describe a flaw in the argument.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. This answer choice does not describe a flaw in the argument. Technically, the argument does fail to consider that heating pads may be less effective than stretching at helping to heal the underlying injury responsible for the pain. But the conclusion is simply that heating pads are generally more effective than stretching at relieving lower back pain. There is nothing in this conclusion about helping to heal the underlying injury responsible for the pain. So failing to consider this possibility is not a flaw in the argument. Remember that in Flaw questions, answer choices can be true of the argument, but not describe a flaw in the argument. It is true that the argument fails to consider what might be most effective for healing the underlying injury responsible for the pain, but since the conclusion is only about what is most effective for relieving the pain, then it is not a flaw to not consider what would be most effective for healing the underlying injury.
Answer choice (B): This describes the causal flaw discussed above.The argument fails to consider that the back pain might go away after several days regardless of any treatments the athlete uses. It might not be that the heating pad caused the pain to go away; instead, it might be that the time elapsed caused the pain to go away.
Answer choice (C): This describes the overgeneralization flaw discussed above. The experience of one athlete should not be generalized to the entire population.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice also gets at the ways in which this argument overgeneralizes. Again, our premise describes only have one specific experience with one specific type of back pain. We can't generalize that to all back pain in the way the conclusion does.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice addresses yet another way in which this argument overgeneralizes based on one experience. There are many different ways of stretching and it may not be fair to say that heating pads are generally more effective than all forms of stretching when our athlete may have only used a very specific form of stretching.
