Question

Into which of the following fallacies does the below statement best fall?

"Economists have found a causal and positive link between 'provision of school lunch programs' and 'student performance on exams' in low income and minority public schools. Therefore, to improve student outcomes the Federal government should mandate school lunch programs in all schools."

a

Fallacy of composition

b

Fallacy of ignoring secondary effects

c

Correlation-causation fallacy

Answer 1

Answer: c

This is the fallacy of correlation – causation. It means although there is correlation between the two variables (school lunch and student outcome) it doesn’t mean that one variable causes the other – we should not come to the conclusion that school lunch can improve exam result; it could only be improved if there are proper infrastructures of study (like scholarships, practical classes, strict monitoring, etc.).

Other options are not correct:

No. a) fallacy of composition indicates that what is true for a single object (individual or a group) is not true for the whole (like savings of a person can improve his wealth but it doesn’t means that everybody’s savings can improve national wealth). The statement has no relation with this fallacy.

No. b) there is no secondary effect of offering school lunch. Therefore, this is not relevant.