Question

Roger: Reading a lot as a child causes nearsightedness-difficulty seeing things at a distance.
Louise: I disagree. Any correlation between nearsightedness and reading results from the fact that children who have trouble seeing things at a distance are likeliest to prefer those activities, such as reading, that involve looking at things close up.
Louise disputes Roger's claim by

• A. demonstrating that an absurd conclusion would follow if Roger's claim were accepted
• B. arguing that what Roger claims to be a cause of a given phenomenon is actually its effect
• C. using an analogy to expose a flaw in Roger's reasoning
• D. pointing out that Roger's claim is self-contradictory
• E. attempting to demonstrate that Roger uses the term" nearsightedness" in an ambiguous way

Hint:

In logical reasoning questions involving two speakers, map out the causal claim of each person. A common form of argument is to accept the correlation but dispute the direction of causation (X causes Y vs. Y causes X), or to introduce a third factor that causes both (Z causes both X and Y).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks us to identify the logical strategy Louise uses to rebut Roger's argument. We need to analyze the relationship between their two causal claims.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Roger's Claim (Causation): Reading (Cause) \(\rightarrow\) Nearsightedness (Effect).
- Louise's Claim (Causation): Louise disagrees and proposes the opposite causal relationship. She argues that having a pre-existing condition, nearsightedness (Cause), makes a child prefer close-up activities like reading (Effect).
So, Louise has taken the two correlated elements, reading and nearsightedness, and reversed the cause-and-effect relationship that Roger proposed.
Let's analyze the options based on this understanding:
- (A) This describes a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, which Louise does not use.
- (B) This perfectly describes Louise's strategy. She argues that the proposed cause (reading) is actually the effect, and the proposed effect (nearsightedness) is actually the cause. This is a classic "reversal of cause and effect" argument.
- (C) Louise does not use an analogy.
- (D) Louise does not claim Roger's statement contradicts itself; she provides an alternative explanation.
- (E) Louise does not dispute the meaning of "nearsightedness."
Step 3: Final Answer:
Louise disputes Roger's claim by reversing the causal relationship he suggests.