# June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR - Q21

## Video Transcript:

0:06
Question 21, Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my
0:12
sports car recklessly.
0:13
But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident
0:20
rates compared to sports cars.
0:22
So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
0:27
All right, so argument or set of facts?
0:30
Clearly, we have an argument here.
0:32
The conclusion of this driver is that ?trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower
0:37
my risk of having an accident.?
0:40
How do we know that?
0:41
Well, he's done some research and minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates
0:47
compared to sports cars.
0:49
So minivans and larger sedans have lower accident rates when compared to sports cars.
1:00
You'll notice that is a correlation.
1:02
The driver takes that correlation?the minivans and larger sedans having lower accident rates?two
1:09
things occurring together and turns it into a cause and effect argument in his conclusion
1:15
because what he says, trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having
1:22
an accident, he's assuming that the minivan is the cause of the lower accident rate.
1:30
Clearly, this is flawed logic because obviously if he still drives like a speed racer and
1:37
thinks he's Mario Andretti, he's still going to get into an accident, right?
1:41
Here, he takes a correlation that minivans have lower accident rates, turns it into a
1:46
cause and effect argument by saying in his conclusion that trading his sports car in
1:51
for a minivan would lower his risk of having an accident.
1:54
Clearly, this is a flawed argument?taking correlation for cause and effect.
2:00
So looking at the questions then, the reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable
2:05
to criticism on the grounds that this argument, again most vulnerable to criticism.
2:12
We have another Errors in Reasoning question.
2:16
Looking for an answer choice that explains this flaw of mistaking a correlation for cause
2:21
and effect, we go to (A), infers a cause from a mere correlation.
2:26
Clearly, that is the flaw, so (A) would be the correct answer.
2:31
But again, just making sure, (B) relies on a sample that is too narrow?again not the
2:36
problem here.
2:37
We do not have a sample that's too narrow.
2:39
(B) explaining the flaw of overgeneralization from an unrepresentative sample, but again
2:48
not what we saw here.
2:50
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that a result is certain.
2:57
Again, the flaw of taking something that is probable and assuming that it will happen
3:02
for sure, not the flaw that we see in this passage.
3:06
Again, he said that it would lower his risk of an accident, not that he would never have
3:11
an accident.
3:12
So (C) is out.
3:13
(D), mistaking a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary
3:19
for doing so.
3:20
So mistaking sufficient for necessary, we know sufficient guarantees necessary, having
3:29
necessary doesn't tell us anything about whether we have this sufficient condition.
3:35
Remember, don't just reverse!
3:42
If all carrots are vegetables, just because I have a vegetable doesn't necessarily mean
3:47
it's carrot, and that is the flaw (D) is describing, but not what we saw.
3:53
Moving to (E), relies on a source that is probably not well informed.
3:57
Clearly, not what we saw in our passage, so (E) would be eliminated.