Q2 - Physiological research has uncovered

[rsmorale]

I narrowed the answer choices down to A and D. A alarmed me because of the "appears to be a causal one." D looked good, because I figured that if there were NO sports that are safer for the human body jogging, then that would mean that the human body is unable to withstand the stresses of any sport. Seemed a little extreme.

What's the best way to approach A and D, in order to find the correct answer?

BTW- I got rid of B because of the "more serious disorders" (irrelevant), C because of the "experience is a factor" (opposite), and E because of the word species (out of scope of the core).

[bbirdwell]

Let's start with the argument itself.

Premises:
1. research links structural disorders to jogging
2. affects beginners and veterans

Conclusion:
Human anatomy not able to withstand stresses of jogging.

Before we go to the choices, we might consider any apparent gaps in the logic. Going from beginner/veteran joggers to "human anatomy" might be a bit of a stretch - the author is assuming that these joggers are representative of the human anatomy.

There is also a subtle gap between the evidence and the conclusion. While the evidence says that jogging is "linked" to injuries, the conclusion acts as if jogging is *causing* the injuries. This is very similar to an argument that says "owners of red cars are involved in more accidents, therefore red cars are more dangerous." The red cars, like jogging, represent a common element that links the people in question, though it's not necessarily a *causal* one (ie the cars aren't causing the accidents, just like jogging may not be causing the injuries)

This is essentially what (A) says. Just because jogging and injuries are linked does mean they are causal. Try negating it. If there is NO causal link between jogging and these injuries, is there any reason at all to believe that the human anatomy cannot withstand jogging? None! Choose (A).

Furthermore, don't be alarmed by seeing "causal" in an argument or choice -- make it your friend. Causal arguments are very common and follow a prescribed pattern, making them easy to analyze.

(B) "other sports" irrelevant

(C) "experience is a factor" -- unsupported

(D) just like (B), "other sports" are irrelevant to the argument at hand. This is only about jogging. Try negating this choice. "NO other sport is safer than jogging." Does that have any effect at all on the conclusion that "the human anatomy cannot withstand jogging?" Nope. Eliminate!

(E) way out of scope

[rsmorale]

Thanks, Brian. This is much more clear to me now. Sometimes it takes a fresh perspective to see the subtle gaps that I missed. I'll try and embrace (instead of fear) the causal language next time around. Much obliged!

[WaltGrace1983]

I will add that (E) is, at least how I see it, a fairly common trick answer. The conclusion is talking about something specific and the answer choice is talking about something very broad. This can be a great thing when you are dealing with Sufficient Assumptions (questions that are mean't to close the gap completely) but can make me very apprehensive in Necessary Assumption questions.

The conclusion is talking about just one sport, jogging, and how the human body is not able to withstand that. (E) then goes on to say that the human body is not very durable. Now what if jogging just so happened to be the absolute most intense activity that you can perform on your skeletal structure? A human can do everything else: run, jump, pole vault, throw a football, jump off skyscrapers, fall from airplanes on a bicycle seat 30,000 feet below, but it cannot jog. Would this mean that the human body is not very durable? Not at all! In fact, it is very durable but it just cannot withstand one particular activity.

It is a trick answer that is definitely something to watch out for.

[keonheecho]

Hi,
This question was kind of tricky to me not because of the "causal" mentioned in the answer choice, but the "appears"...couldn't it be the case that the link could be causal without seeming to be causal? Isn't what the link "appears to be" irrelevant to the argument?