Evaluate Evidence Adequacy - CARS

1. Identify the evidence flaw: "The program helped in one city; therefore it will work everywhere."

   Contextual mismatch; overextending beyond the evidence. Success in one context does not ensure applicability elsewhere due to varying conditions.

2. Identify the evidence flaw: "One student disliked the course, so the course is poorly taught."

   Anecdotal evidence causing a hasty generalization. A single case lacks representativeness, leading to overgeneralization about the course's quality.

3. What is the main flaw when only supportive evidence is presented and contrary evidence is ignored?

   Cherry-picking (selective evidence). Selective presentation distorts the full picture by omitting contradictory data, undermining adequacy.

4. What is the main flaw when a correlation is treated as proof of causation?

   Causal fallacy (correlation does not establish causation). Correlation alone cannot prove causation due to potential confounders or alternative explanations.

5. What is the main flaw when an argument treats an authority's statement as decisive without support?

   Unwarranted appeal to authority. Appeals to authority require independent verification, as expertise alone does not guarantee accuracy.

6. Identify the evidence flaw: "Because an expert said it, the claim is true, no data needed."

   Unwarranted appeal to authority as sufficient evidence. Relying solely on authority bypasses the need for empirical data to substantiate the claim.

7. What is the main flaw when evidence is drawn only from an unrepresentative subgroup?

   Sampling bias (unrepresentative sample). Unrepresentative subgroups skew results, preventing accurate extrapolation to the larger population.

8. What is the key question to test representativeness of evidence?

   Does the evidence reflect the broader population or typical cases. Representativeness checks ensure evidence reflects the full population, avoiding bias in generalizations.

9. What is the main flaw when the conclusion is stronger than what the evidence can justify?

   Overgeneralization or overstatement of the conclusion. Conclusions exceeding evidence scope commit overgeneralization, as support is limited to narrower claims.

10. What is the key question to test relevance when evaluating evidence adequacy?

    Does this evidence directly bear on the specific claim at issue. Relevance testing confirms evidence addresses the precise claim rather than tangential issues.

11. What is the main flaw when the evidence could be explained by an alternative cause not addressed?

    Failure to rule out plausible alternative explanations. Ignoring alternatives weakens evidence adequacy, as unaddressed causes could equally explain the data.

12. What is the main flaw when an argument uses a small sample to generalize broadly?

    Hasty generalization from an insufficient sample. Small samples do not provide sufficient data to justify broad generalizations, leading to unreliable conclusions.

13. Identify the evidence flaw: "Study shows correlation; therefore the factor causes the outcome."

    Causal inference from correlation without ruling out confounders. Mere correlation fails to establish causation without controlling for other influencing variables.

14. What is the key question to test sufficiency when evaluating evidence adequacy?

    Is there enough evidence to justify the conclusion to the needed degree. Sufficiency assessment verifies evidence meets the threshold needed to reasonably support the conclusion's strength.

15. What is the main flaw when evidence is about one context but the conclusion is about a different context?

    Contextual mismatch (external validity problem). Differences in context limit external validity, making evidence inadequate for claims in new settings.

16. Identify the evidence flaw: "Only positive reviews are cited to prove the product is reliable."

    Cherry-picking; ignoring counterevidence. Selecting only favorable data ignores the full evidence base, biasing the reliability assessment.

17. What is a confounder in evaluating whether evidence supports a causal claim?

    A third variable that influences both the supposed cause and effect. Confounders undermine causal claims by offering alternative explanations for observed associations.

18. Identify the evidence flaw: "A survey of enthusiasts proves the general public supports the policy."

    Sampling bias; the sample is not representative. Surveying a biased group distorts results, as it does not reflect the broader public's views.

19. What is a common sign that evidence is anecdotal rather than adequate?

    It relies on one or a few personal cases as proof of a general claim. Anecdotal evidence lacks breadth and representativeness, failing to support broader claims adequately.

20. What is the main flaw when a claim is supported by a source with a strong incentive to mislead?

    Credibility problem due to conflict of interest or bias. Biased sources compromise reliability, as incentives may lead to distorted or incomplete evidence.

21. Which evidence is more adequate for causation: a controlled comparison or a single observed association?

    A controlled comparison that addresses confounders. Controlled designs better isolate causes by minimizing confounders, strengthening causal evidence.

22. What does it mean for evidence to be adequate to support an argument's conclusion?

    It is relevant, sufficient, and logically supports the conclusion. Adequacy ensures evidence directly pertains to the claim, provides enough support, and logically justifies the conclusion without gaps.

23. Which evidence is more adequate for a broad claim: one case report or multiple representative studies?

    Multiple representative studies. Multiple studies offer greater representativeness and reliability for supporting broad generalizations.

24. What is the main flaw when evidence is outdated relative to the claim being made?

    Temporal mismatch; evidence lacks current applicability. Outdated evidence may not reflect current conditions, reducing its relevance and applicability.

25. Identify the evidence flaw: "This diet worked for my friend; therefore it works for everyone."

    Hasty generalization from an unrepresentative anecdote. One personal success does not provide sufficient, representative data for universal efficacy claims.

Study these flashcards