Since the Educational Testing Service is responsible for measuring intelligence, it is disturbing when they appear . . . not intelligent. A Chinese student of mine sent me the following question, which appears in a set of study questions. You are supposed to identify the “flaw” in the argument.
The article entitled ‘Eating Iron’ in last month’s issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
By “is a function of” I suppose means “is due to”. Sure, there are several imperfections, unstated assumptions, in every argument, including this one, just as every piece of research has several imperfections. But are there obvious important flaws in this argument? I think it is reasonable to assume that red meat is the main source of iron.
Since many scientists have trouble interpreting correlations (they think “correlation does not equal causation” is not misleading) presumably an ETS question writer has even more trouble. And this question reflects that. But maybe not.
Since the Educational Testing Service is responsible for measuring intelligence, it is disturbing when they appear . . . not intelligent. A Chinese student of mine sent me the following question, which appears in a set of study questions. You are supposed to identify the “flaw” in the argument.
By “is a function of” I suppose means “is due to”. Sure, there are several imperfections, unstated assumptions, in every argument, including this one, just as every piece of research has several imperfections. But are there obvious important flaws in this argument? I think it is reasonable to assume that red meat is the main source of iron.
Since many scientists have trouble interpreting correlations (they think “correlation does not equal causation” is not misleading) presumably an ETS question writer has even more trouble. And this question reflects that. But maybe not.