Question

A recent study of heart disease interviewed people about what they had eaten for the past month. Researchers found that people who regularly ate pickles had lower rates of heart disease than people who ate them only infrequently. Therefore, eating pickles regularly must help prevent heart disease. The above statement represents which kind of logical fallacy?

• A. Ad Hominem
• B. Confusing cause and effect
• C. Post Hoc
• D. Bandwagon
• E. Genetic Fallacy

Hint:

Always question whether correlation truly implies causation, especially in medical studies.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the fallacy.
The statement concludes that eating pickles regularly causes lower rates of heart disease, but it may be another factor (not eating pickles) that is actually causing the lower rates of heart disease.

Step 2: Analyzing the options.
- (A) Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks a person's character instead of addressing the argument, which is not applicable here.
- (B) Confusing cause and effect: This fallacy occurs when a correlation is mistakenly assumed to be causation. In this case, the conclusion that eating pickles prevents heart disease is a confusion of cause and effect.
- (C) Post Hoc: This fallacy occurs when it is assumed that because one thing follows another, the first caused the second. While similar, this is not an exact fit for the scenario.
- (D) Bandwagon: This fallacy suggests that something is true because many people believe it. This is not relevant to the argument.
- (E) Genetic Fallacy: This fallacy attacks the origins or history of an argument rather than addressing its merits. This is not applicable here.

Step 3: Conclusion.
Option (B) is the correct answer because it directly addresses the logical error of assuming that one factor (eating pickles) is the cause of the outcome (lower heart disease rates).