Question

Read the following excerpt from Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics.

"The bagel data also reflect how much personal mood seems to affect
honesty. Weather, for instance, is a major factor. Unseasonably pleasant
weather inspires people to pay at a higher rate. Unseasonably cold
weather, meanwhile, makes people cheat prolifically; so do heavy rain
and wind. Worst are the holidays. The week of Christmas produces a
2 percent drop in payment rates-again, a 15 percent increase in theft, an
effect on the same magnitude, in reverse, as that of 9/11. Thanksgiving is
nearly as bad; the week of Valentine's Day is also lousy, as is the week
straddling April 15. There are, however, a few good holidays: the weeks
that include the Fourth of July, Labor Day, and Columbus Day. The
difference in the two sets of holidays? The low-cheating holidays
represent little more than an extra day off from work. The high-cheating
holidays are fraught with miscellaneous anxieties and the high
expectations of loved ones."
To support their argument, the authors employ reasoning that
works from a generalization to formulate specific examples.
arrives at a generalization after starting with another generalization.
formulates a generalization by studying specific examples.
arrives at specific examples by studying other examples.

Answer 1

To support their argument, the authors employ reasoning that formulates a generalization by studying specific examples. The authors use the specific examples of holidays and weather to arrive at the generalization that personal mood affects honesty. They then further support this generalization by providing more specific examples, such as the effects of holidays and weather on payment rates and theft.

Answer 2

Levitt and Dubner use reasoning that formulates a generalization by studying specific examples, such as how mood and honesty are affected by weather and holidays. They avoid biased samples and demonstrate an understanding of the correlation-causation fallacy by providing specific, observed instances leading to a general conclusion.

Step-by-step explanation:

To address the student's question regarding the type of reasoning Levitt and Dubner employ in their argument in Freakonomics, the authors use a reasoning process that formulates a generalization by studying specific examples. They provide details about payment rates for bagels in various situations, such as different types of weather and during the holidays, and notice a pattern: that the personal mood of individuals, influenced by variables like weather and holidays, seems to impact their honesty. These observations of specific instances lead them to a more general conclusion about human behavior. Furthermore, the authors' argument strategy is inductive, moving from observations of particular instances to broader generalizations.

This type of reasoning is important to differentiate from reasoning that might use a biased sample or fall for the correlation-causation fallacy. A biased sample can lead to incorrect generalizations just as mistaking correlation for causation can result in false beliefs. In the case of correlation and causation, identifying a third variable, such as the temperature's influence on both ice cream sales and crime rates, provides a clearer understanding of the relationship between two seemingly connected phenomena.