#19- Cyclists in the Tour de France are extremely physically

[Sherry001]

Hi there ;
Just a quick question . I noticed the flaw in the argument to be that author is concluding a case from what's typical , not certain. However ... I also noticed a second flaw. Am I wrong to think that there is some sort of a temporal flaw present as well ?
I say this because the author compares test results of last year with this years

What do you think ?

Thanks
Sherry

[Laura Carrier]

Hi Sherry,

You are right to always consider whether there is a temporal error of some kind whenever a stimulus relies on information about the past to draw a conclusion about a later time!

As you noted, in this case the prominent error is the reasoning that, because these athletes typically exhibit exceptional lung capacity or a powerful heart, and last year’s winner didn’t have a powerful heart, then last year’s winner must have had exceptional lung capacity—which can also be regarded as a classic false dilemma, since we have no way to know that there was no other possible type of abnormal physiology.

But there is also a secondary potential vulnerability in assuming that what was true of all past winners must also be true of a current or future winner. Here, the stimulus doesn’t actually make that error, since it tells us that “all of the winners of this race have had [abnormal physiology]” and then draws a conclusion about last year’s winner, who fits into that group temporally. If, on the other hand, the stimulus had drawn a conclusion about this year’s winner or made a prediction about next year’s winner, it would have been a perfect example of the kind of temporal error you are thinking about. A very keen observation!

Laura

[gwlsathelp]

Hello!

Going through this question, I ended up getting stuck. It appears to me that the author set this question up up as if it were a formal logic conditional stimulus to trick test goers. I see now that the answer edges on the test goer to consider a third cause (physiological abnormality) to the effect (winning the Tour de France), which is typical to undermining conditionals. What would be a good way of going about this question and is my after-the-fact reasoning correct?

[Adam Tyson]

I wouldn't say this was exactly causal, gwlsathelp, nor is it entirely conditional. It is, as you surmised, based in part on Formal Logic, indicated by the use of the word "typical," which means "usually" or "most of the time." So while all of the winners must have abnormal physical constitutions, they do not all have to have large hearts or lungs. Perhaps some of them have some other type of abnormal physical issue? Noticing that "typical" allows for some exceptions is the key to spotting the flaw and selecting the correct answer here. Other than looking at this as causal, your analysis is spot on!

[lemonade42]

Hi! Can someone explain why (C) is wrong. I can see how he made the flaw shown in B, but it also seems like he made the flaw shown in C. I keep thinking that it is true he overlooked the fact in C so he was able to make the conclusion that the cyclist does not have a normal lung and instead an exceptional lung. Because if he didn't overlook it, he would have realized that since there's no exceptional heart, and concluded this cyclist could have had a normal lung capacity.

[Dana D]

Hey lemonade,

The author says all winners have had abnormal physiology, and that typically this is related to their lung and heart. The typically means most, but does not mean all. Some winners may have had other physiological advantages - we don't know, so we can't say for sure that because the winner didn't have a powerful heart, they must have had exceptional lung capacity.

If the stimulus had said all winners always have either an exceptional heart or lungs, then you are correct, the elimination of the heart would indicate exceptional lungs, but that is not the case here.

Hope that helps!