PT 20, Section 4 # 22 Forum
-
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:04 pm
PT 20, Section 4 # 22
From reading the stimulus it was obvious that the flaw is that the advertisement is creating a cause and effect relationship from a correlation. I picked answer C because it is the only one that addressed cause and effect,but I do not understand the wording. Can anyone help me understand this better. Thanks.
- dontdoitkid
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:02 pm
Re: PT 20, Section 4 # 22
One thing jumped out to me before I even read any of the answer choices, which is that the first speakers logic is "They have not found a gene for manic depression, therefor you cannot be genetically predisposed to it." However, it precludes the possibility that manic depression can occur without there being a singular gene for it. Maybe it's a normal gene that mutates, maybe it's a combination of different genes. If you break down the answer choices:
A: This answer corrected because it says that the first speaker falsely assumes only one possibility (since there isn't a manic depression gene, you can't be genetically be predisposed to it) when there is another possibility - that a combination of different genes may contribute to the conditions. Hence this answer is correct.
B: The evidence offered does not actually contradict each other, it just may appear that way at first.
C: We have nothing on which to base any sort of conclusion about authorities working out of their field - they're just "researchers." Be careful not to twist an answer choice to fit your vision when you feel trapped or are not sure which answer is correct.
D: It's ignoring other evidence, not disallowing it.
E: There is no degree of likeliness here - the first speaker just claims that because the gene doesn't exist, one cannot be genetically predisposed to it. Nothing to be said about how likely or unlikely it is.
A: This answer corrected because it says that the first speaker falsely assumes only one possibility (since there isn't a manic depression gene, you can't be genetically be predisposed to it) when there is another possibility - that a combination of different genes may contribute to the conditions. Hence this answer is correct.
B: The evidence offered does not actually contradict each other, it just may appear that way at first.
C: We have nothing on which to base any sort of conclusion about authorities working out of their field - they're just "researchers." Be careful not to twist an answer choice to fit your vision when you feel trapped or are not sure which answer is correct.
D: It's ignoring other evidence, not disallowing it.
E: There is no degree of likeliness here - the first speaker just claims that because the gene doesn't exist, one cannot be genetically predisposed to it. Nothing to be said about how likely or unlikely it is.
-
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:50 am
Re: PT 20, Section 4 # 22
Hi Lying Lawyer,
I'm wondering if you might have posted the wrong q. Your comment refers to an advertisement, but the q you posted is about genes and manic depression (as indicated by Uconn's post). Care to clarify?
I'm wondering if you might have posted the wrong q. Your comment refers to an advertisement, but the q you posted is about genes and manic depression (as indicated by Uconn's post). Care to clarify?
- dontdoitkid
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:02 pm
Re: PT 20, Section 4 # 22
Yeah for some reason I thought the cause and effect was referring to the predisposition for genetic disorders... oh well, it was good practice. Feel free to PM me or repost if you still want help with the actual question, all anyone would need is which question it is since we can't write it up (i.e. PT XX, SX, QXX).
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login