A recent poll of a large number of households found that 47 percent of those with a cat had at least one person with ...

Ava on June 8 at 11:42PM

B versus E

I understand why B is right here but had trouble eliminating E because it also seemed to apply as an error in the reasoning of the argument. Can someone explain why E is wrong,and why by extension the error in reasoning in the argument is not that of confusing correlation and causation? Thanks in advance.

2 Replies

Annie on June 9 at 01:42AM

Hi @shafieiava,

Whenever you see a percentage on a logical reasoning question, it's important to check if the conclusion of the argument is about percents or amounts. Here, the numbers are all in percents, but the conclusion is about a total amount. Answer (B) points out this flaw and is therefore correct. If there are simply many more households with dogs, than it is possible that there are actually more university grads living with dogs then with cats.

Answer (E) is incorrect because the argument doesn't actually talk about causation. The argument simply states that people with university degrees are more likely to live with a cat than a dog. IF the argument said something like "people with cats are more likely to get a degree" that would be a causation argument. But, the argument steers clear of that and just talks about correlation. So, this flaw isn't present.

Kenji on January 13 at 07:43AM

I thought the passage was talking about the same poll? For instance, poll taken on 1000 households and comparing the percentage of those households with cat and dog ownership. Please help me understand this question.