LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningHard
A medical researcher states: 'A recent study found that individuals who regularly consume caffeine tend to report higher levels of daily productivity. Therefore, caffeine consumption directly causes increased productivity.'\n\nThe researcher's conclusion is problematic primarily because it:
- AIgnores other factors that might contribute to both caffeine consumption and productivity.
- BDoes not specify the amount of caffeine consumed or the type of productivity measured.
- CFails to consider that individuals who are already more productive might choose to consume more caffeine.
- DAssumes that all individuals respond to caffeine in the same way.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Fails to consider that individuals who are already more productive might choose to consume more caffeine.
The researcher assumes caffeine causes productivity. Option A suggests the reverse: that higher productivity (or the lifestyle associated with it) causes increased caffeine consumption. This is a classic 'Reverse Causation' flaw, where the effect is mistaken for the cause.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. While a valid weakness (alternative causes), option A presents a more direct challenge to the causal direction, making it a stronger flaw.
- B. These are methodological limitations, but do not point to a fundamental flaw in the *causal inference* itself (if correlation existed, which way does causality flow?).
- D. This is a generalization issue, but doesn't address the core causal flaw.
Reverse Causation Flaw
A fallacy where an arguer mistakenly concludes that an observed effect is the cause, and the supposed cause is actually the effect.
- Confuses cause and effect.
- Often arises when two variables correlate but the direction of influence is unclear.
- Can be difficult to distinguish from common cause.
Memory trick: Don't put the cart before the horse; check the direction.