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

Show 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).
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • demonstrating that an absurd conclusion would follow if Roger's claim were accepted
  • arguing that what Roger claims to be a cause of a given phenomenon is actually its effect
  • using an analogy to expose a flaw in Roger's reasoning
  • pointing out that Roger's claim is self-contradictory
  • attempting to demonstrate that Roger uses the term" nearsightedness" in an ambiguous way
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

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.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Logical Reasoning

View More Questions

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions