Argument: 'Every time the team trained on Tuesdays they lost their next match. Therefore, training on Tuesdays causes losses.' The BEST critique of this argument is that it
AIs a syllogism
BIs a valid deductive inference
CCommits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy — assuming temporal succession implies causation
DAssumes Tuesdays are unlucky
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C. Commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy — assuming temporal succession implies causation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: 'after this, therefore because of this'. Mere temporal succession does not establish causation. Confounding factors (e.g., opponents on Wednesdays were stronger) may be the real cause.
Related questions
Odd man out: APPLE, MANGO, BANANA, POTATOIn a series 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, ?, the next prime isIf A=1, B=2, C=3, ..., the value of PEN isOdd man out: 9, 16, 24, 36, 49, 64Find next: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, ?Find next term: 8, 27, 64, 125, ?If the code for TEACHER is VGCEJGT, the code for STUDENT will beFind the missing term: 5, 9, 17, 33, 65, ?