LR - what does this answer choice mean? PT48 Forum

[hellojd]

PT 48, section 4, #11.

Vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that...

C - Builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for that conclusion

I got this q right, but had NO idea what C even meant...

Thanks in advance for help.

[GoNU]

Support cited for the conclusion is the premise...so if you build the conclusion into the premise you are probably guilty of some form of circular reasoning....i think thats what they mean..would help if i saw the actual question tho!

[malfurion]

Yeah, that wording is pretty strange, but I think it would fall into the circular reasoning category.

[Knock]

11. (D) Logical Flaw
Be alert to causal relationships, in whatever form
they appear.
The author denies that trauma contributes to phobias
(even though, he concedes, the latter usually are
preceded by the former!) because one can have one
but not the other: people can experience trauma but
not a phobia, or a phobia without trauma. This is akin
to saying that hailstorms must not contribute to a car’s
pitted hood, because hail can fall without damaging
any cars, and car hoods can be pitted in the absence
of hailstones. The idea is that establishing a
contributing relationship doesn’t require establishing
inevitable, 100 percent causality, and that’s why (D) is
correct. Just because the two things (phobias and
trauma) aren’t always associated, doesn’t mean that
they can’t have some sort of association.
(A) There’s no confusion of cause and effect here.
Indeed, the author is trying to drive a wedge between
them altogether.
(B) The author by no means presumes that phobias
have no causal factors; she just denies trauma as one
of them, that’s all.
(C) Whatever else you think of them, the evidence and
conclusion are separate here; the latter isn’t
surreptitiously folded into the former.
(E) Actually, this argument might have been composed
in rebuttal to those who “derive a causal connection
between mere association.” Meanwhile, the rest of
(E), the stuff about “no independent evidence,”
doesn’t relate to anything in the paragraph.

[hellojd]

Got it, so it's basically circular reasoning. Thanks all.