A company executive argues: 'Our new employee wellness program, which offers free gym memberships and healthy cooking classes, has been a resounding success. Employee absenteeism has decreased by 15% since its implementation.'\n\nWhich of the following, if true, identifies the most serious flaw in the executive's reasoning?
- AThe company also implemented a new flexible work-from-home policy at the same time as the wellness program.
- BMany employees already had gym memberships before the program began.
- CEmployee absenteeism was already on a downward trend for two years prior to the program's introduction.
- DOnly a small percentage of employees participate in the wellness program.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Employee absenteeism was already on a downward trend for two years prior to the program's introduction.
The executive attributes the 15% decrease to the wellness program. Option D reveals that this trend was already in motion. This is a baseline fallacy combined with a post hoc ergo propter hoc flaw; the program may not be the cause if the trend was pre-existing. This is a stronger flaw than simply an alternative cause (B) because it suggests the program had *no additional impact* or that the observed change was simply a continuation of a prior trend, making the program's 'success' unsubstantiated.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This identifies an alternative cause, weakening the argument, but D is stronger as it suggests the program might not have caused *any additional* change.
- B. This suggests limited impact, but doesn't directly invalidate the observed decrease or its potential attribution to the program for *some* employees.
- D. This limits the program's reach, but doesn't negate its impact on those who *do* participate or explain the overall 15% drop.
Pre-existing Trend Fallacy
Occurs when an arguer attributes a change or outcome to a specific intervention, but the change was merely a continuation of a trend that was already happening before the intervention.
- A type of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy.
- Fails to establish a unique causal link.
- Requires comparing the rate of change before and after the intervention, not just absolute values.
Memory trick: Don't claim credit for a river already flowing.