A local coffee shop owner observes that sales of specialty lattes have significantly increased during the past year. The owner attributes this surge primarily to a new marketing campaign featuring vibrant social media ads. Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest alternative cause for the increase in latte sales?
- AThe social media ad campaign was launched only three months ago, but sales began increasing eight months ago.
- BThe coffee shop introduced several new, popular latte flavors at the beginning of the year.
- CA major competitor coffee shop specializing in lattes closed down permanently six months ago in the same neighborhood.
- DOverall coffee consumption in the city has seen a steady increase due to population growth.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. The social media ad campaign was launched only three months ago, but sales began increasing eight months ago.
The owner attributes the sales increase *primarily* to a *new marketing campaign*. To provide the strongest alternative cause, one must show that the proposed cause (marketing campaign) could not be primary. Option C indicates that sales began increasing *before* the campaign launched, directly undermining the campaign as the *primary* cause and suggesting another, earlier factor is at play.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This is a strong alternative cause, as new flavors could drive sales, but the timing of sales increase (eight months ago vs. beginning of year) is not as direct a contradiction as option C.
- C. This is a strong alternative cause, but the timing (six months ago) is less precise than option C in directly contradicting the campaign's primacy.
- D. While overall consumption increase could contribute, it's a general trend, and the question asks for the strongest alternative cause for the *specialty latte* increase, and C is more specific and temporally contradictory.
Challenging Temporal Precedence
To challenge temporal precedence is to show that the presumed effect occurred before the presumed cause, thereby undermining the possibility of a direct causal relationship.
- Cause must precede effect for causation.
- Evidence showing effect before cause disproves the link.
- Crucial for establishing causality.
Memory trick: The cart can't pull the horse, time must flow forward.