Biologist: The recent increase in the population of deer in suburban areas is primarily due to increased deforestation, which forces deer into human-dominated habitats. However, a local wildlife expert points out that the deer population has also increased in areas where deforestation rates have remained stable. Therefore, the biologist's claim is incorrect.
- AIt ignores the possibility that the local wildlife expert is biased.
- BIt does not provide data on the absolute numbers of deer in the affected areas.
- CIt assumes that stable deforestation rates imply a stable availability of natural habitats for deer.
- DIt fails to consider that deforestation might be a contributing factor even if not the sole cause.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. It fails to consider that deforestation might be a contributing factor even if not the sole cause.
The biologist claims deforestation is the *primary* cause. The wildlife expert's counter-argument shows that deer populations increased even without increased deforestation, suggesting deforestation isn't the *sole* cause. However, a factor being the 'primary' cause does not mean it is the *only* cause. Other factors can exist, and deforestation could still be the most significant one overall. The counter-argument only shows it's not the *exclusive* cause, which doesn't fully refute the 'primary' claim.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Attacking the source (wildlife expert) is an ad hominem and not a flaw in the reasoning of the expert's *statement* as presented in the argument.
- B. Absolute numbers would be useful, but the logical flaw lies in the interpretation of the *relative* change and its impact on the 'primary cause' claim.
- C. The argument's flaw isn't in what 'stable deforestation' implies, but in the jump from that to refuting the 'primary cause' claim.
Overstated Refutation (Failing to Distinguish 'Primary' from 'Sole')
A flaw in reasoning where an argument attempts to refute a claim about a 'primary' or 'major' cause by presenting evidence that merely shows it is not the 'sole' or 'exclusive' cause.
- Confuses 'most important' with 'only'.
- Evidence against exclusivity does not negate primacy.
- Requires careful attention to the degree of causation claimed.
Memory trick: Primary is not sole; don't let one part control the whole!