Q25 - Substantial economic growth must be preceded

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Technological innovations are necessary precursors to economic growth. Banning fossil fuels will lead to tech innovations, so an oil ban will grow the economy.

Answer Anticipation:
Classic reversal. Innovations are necessary, but the argument treats them as sufficient.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Circular Reasoning). The conclusion doesn't restate a premise.

(B) Wrong flaw (Unproven vs. Untrue). The critics's reasoning isn't critiqued; it isn't even mentioned.

(C) Not a flaw. It's absolutely acceptable to use stronger evidence than necessary.

(D) I'd probably quickly skim through the answer and land here since it mentions necessary/sufficient conditions.

(E) Tempting. This is getting at a Possible vs. Certain flaw, and a Correlation vs. Causation flaw. However, check the conclusion - it just states that the economic boom would follow the ban, not that it would be caused by the ban. Also, the innovations are established as necessary for economic growth, so it's not something that only sometimes precedes a phenomenon. The answer is also conflating the innovations and the ban.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Look out for language of necessity (here, "must be preceded"). It often leads to illegal reversals.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw


(E) Tempting. This is getting at a Possible vs. Certain flaw, and a Correlation vs. Causation flaw. However, check the conclusion - it just states that the economic boom would follow the ban, not that it would be caused by the ban. Also, the innovations are established as necessary for economic growth, so it's not something that only sometimes precedes a phenomenon. The answer is also conflating the innovations and the ban.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Look out for language of necessity (here, "must be preceded"). It often leads to illegal reversals.

#officialexplanation

I had a question regarding "E" regarding the fact that causality was not implied by the argument because it used "followed" but to me this argument seems to imply causality and the author basically meant "caused" because the premise goes on to state a whole process of how it happens. Ignoring the illegal reversal that was made, we see that the stimulus presents to us the steps to which a ban on fossil fuel will eventually lead to the result of higher economic growth. In other words, it seems like the argument is implying causality. That said, I did not think of the flaw on first read as Corr/Causation argument and viewed it at as a conditional argument flaw.

[HelenH783]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw


(E) Tempting. This is getting at a Possible vs. Certain flaw, and a Correlation vs. Causation flaw. However, check the conclusion - it just states that the economic boom would follow the ban, not that it would be caused by the ban. Also, the innovations are established as necessary for economic growth, so it's not something that only sometimes precedes a phenomenon. The answer is also conflating the innovations and the ban.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Look out for language of necessity (here, "must be preceded"). It often leads to illegal reversals.

#officialexplanation

I had a question regarding "E" regarding the fact that causality was not implied by the argument because it used "followed" but to me this argument seems to imply causality and the author basically meant "caused" because the premise goes on to state a whole process of how it happens. Ignoring the illegal reversal that was made, we see that the stimulus presents to us the steps to which a ban on fossil fuel will eventually lead to the result of higher economic growth. In other words, it seems like the argument is implying causality. That said, I did not think of the flaw on first read as Corr/Causation argument and viewed it at as a conditional argument flaw.

I thought the argument implied causality too and chose E. After staring at it for a while, I still think the argument implies causality, but that E goes wrong by saying "certain conditions only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon", when in the argument "substantial economic growth must be preceded by" tech innovations. If the language were changed in that way, (I think) E would be very similar to D. Curious if anyone can chime in on whether a causation flaw or a conditional flaw could be right here, if the causation flaw were worded differently.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that causality is not explicit here, but it's certainly highly suggestive.

If we re-worded (E) to say this, it would be a correct answer:
because certain conditions are always preceded by a certain phenomenon, this phenomenon must always be followed by these certain conditions