Kmikaeli wrote:This is the last question on this topic pertaining to the four causal methods mentioned to us in terms of flawed reasoning. If for instance there is a flaw in the argument where one event comes before another (aka sequence of events which is the first option on the flawed reasoning causal statement page), the answer choice I have to look for will be either how the author has come up with a causal statement by assuming how the sequence led to it or the answer choice might supply any of the other three alternative causal possibilities, is that correct? So, basically the answer choice can mention the flaw that is made apparent in the argument (in this case one event coming before another to create a flawed causal conclusion) or it can easily give us another answer choice from the other 3 aspects of assumption mentioned on pg 463.
Ok, I bolded the part of the statement above that's a problem, specifically the words "have to." The answer to that is No, they get to do whatever they want to do. Could they decide to feature a causal flaw if one exists? Sure, but it's their world and they are under no obligation whatsoever to do what you expect. This is why you have to recognize what's there, and seek it, but if it isn't there you continue on and see if there is something else that's a problem. Sure, most of the time if a causal flaw is present they'd feature that as the right answer, but they don't have to.
That aside, should
you look for it? Definitely, and you are on the right track as far as what you are looking for