|
Correct Answer: just because red hair and intelligence occur in the same person, does not mean that red hair causes intelligence.
james has made a logical error often referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc," or "after this, therefore because of this." this fallacy occurs when it is assumed that because one thing follows another, the first thing must have caused the second. in this scenario, james concludes that harold's red hair is the cause of his high intelligence merely because these two characteristics coincide in harold.
the correct explanation for james's error is that he has confused correlation (a coincidental relationship where two or more things happen at the same time) with causation (a relationship where one event causes another to happen). just because harold has red hair and also happens to have the highest grade in his class does not mean his hair color is the reason for his academic success. this is a common misunderstanding and is especially prevalent in cases where a visible or distinctive trait coincides with a particular ability or outcome.
to further examine whether red hair might influence intelligence, a more rigorous scientific approach would be required. this would involve gathering a significantly large and diverse group of people with red hair and another group without red hair and comparing their performances on intelligence tests. if a statistically significant difference in intelligence is found between the two groups, and other factors (like socioeconomic status, education level, etc.) are controlled, then one might begin to consider a potential link between red hair and intelligence. however, even then, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
other factors could also be contributing to harold's academic success, such as his study habits, access to educational resources, or intrinsic motivation, none of which are necessarily related to his hair color. it is also possible that harold's red hair is entirely coincidental to his intelligence.
thus, the correct choice that describes james's error is the one that points out the mistake of assuming causation from mere correlation. this is a fundamental concept in scientific and critical thinking, crucial for making accurate and reliable conclusions based on observed data or phenomena.
|
