Conclusion: eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
Why? The argument discusses the correlation that the longer a pretzel remains in contact with teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. This same correlation holds true for caramels. And we know that caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do.
So, we are taking the fact that caramels and pretzels have the same correlation regarding the length of time they remain in contact with teeth and whether a cavity will result, to conclude that caramels are less likely to cause cavities than pretzels.
What's the issue? Well, we are given two similar correlations, one about pretzels and one about caramels, and then we use those two correlations to infer a correlation that crosses between the two different foods: that caramels are less likely than pretzels to cause cavities.
But, we cannot make a conclusion that crosses over both food types, because we have not been given enough information. We merely know: (1) the longer a pretzel is held to one's teeth, the more likely it is that a cavity will result; and (2) the longer a caramel is held to one's teeth, the more likely it is that a cavity will result.
Even if we take in the fact that caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels, we cannot then make the conclusion that eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel because we don't have enough information on the differences between pretzels and caramels. What if the sugar in caramels is much more likely to cause cavities than the sugar in pretzels? What if people are more likely to eat more caramels than pretzels?
This is exactly what answer choice (A) points out: "treats a correlation that holds within individual categories (i.e. a correlation about pretzels and a correlation about caramels) as thereby holding across categories (i.e. the correlation will hold between pretzels and caramels)."
Answer choice (C) states: "makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent."
This is not the flaw in the argument. The argument does not give us any "examples." It merely presents us with two similar correlations about two different things, i.e. pretzels and caramels. The correlation about pretzels adequately represents a specific characteristic in all pretzels, and the correlation about caramels adequately represents a specific characteristic in all caramels. Thus, answer choice (C) does not describe the flaw that is present in the argument.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
patentastic October 14, 2014
Ah, thanks a lot Naz.
SarahAMay 6, 2019
Thank you!!!
RaviMay 6, 2019
@patentastic and @msaber, let us know if you have any other questions—we're here to help!
