- Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:30 am
I have multiple questions on this question. I initially thought "an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior" in the conclusion refers to "impulsive behavior in children" in the premise due to the similarities they share and the fact that children will eventually grow into adulthood. Thinking that the flaw is a classic correlation to causation, I went ahead looking for an answer choice describing this flaw. I thought (E) is suggesting that correlation are commonplace so it is unrealistic to pin down a causation each and every time you spot correlation. In other words, to pin down causation we would need further evidence besides mere correlation.
However, previous posts seem to interpret "inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior" as "adult thrill-seeking behavior." In other words, "inclination toward a behavior" is the behavior itself. It somewhat makes sense, since children do not engage in "thrill-seeking behavior," 'cause otherwise the stimulus would just call it as such. Instead, the author relates "impulsive behavior in children" to "adult thrill-seeking behavior." But the way the author connected these two is by stating impulsive behavior in children is "similar to" adult thrill-seeking behavior, which seemingly suggests those are still essentially different types of behaviors. So this is the other blatant flaw that was pointed out by previous posts: though the symptoms/manifestation/behaviors might be the same/similar, the etiology/cause could be quite different.
However, (B), the credited response, did not deal with either of these flaws, but went for a data attack. I've done a few flaw and weaken questions so far and data attack has always been an incorrect answer choice. Thus, I'm wondering what constitutes a successful data attack? I tend to think data attack only gets to the premise, basically saying the premise is not true, without touching upon the link between the premise(s) and the conclusion. The reasons I've learned so far to eliminate a data attack answer choice is to see if there's anything in the stimulus suggesting the data might not be reliable. In other words, if the stimulus is just laying out some claims/facts, you can't just weaken the argument by saying those claims/facts are not reliable. With this line of thinking, I'm wondering if the author gives out any clues to suggest the claim(s) in the premise might not be reliable. Naturally, my eyes land on "similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior." So by using the vague language to describe the "impulsive behavior in children" as "similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior," which also indicates that those might still be totally different things, does the author suggest a data attack is in place?
Also, can (A) and (D) be eliminated because of "many," which is essentially a "some" statement? Is it correct to say "some" statements can never strengthen or weaken arguments because they could very well be describing some outliers, which would not fundamentally affect the reasoning?
Lastly, I eliminated (C) because it talks about "often described by adults as ..." I thought it's not relevant how adults describe certain behavior in children, as they may be wrong. What matters is what the behavior is, from a scientific or factual perspective. Is this a good strategy? Thanks!