Since Jessica’s participation in local politics increased significantly after she joined her school’s political science club, it is clear that her involvement in that club led her to take an interest in politics.
The argument above is flawed because
See Related Questions below.
it assumes a causal relationship between Jessica's increase in participation in local politics and her membership in the school's political science club without considering other possible factors. To evaluate the argument's flaw, we can identify a few potential issues:
1. Correlation vs. causation: Just because Jessica's involvement in local politics increased significantly after joining the political science club doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other. There could be other factors that influenced her interest in politics, such as personal experiences or outside influences.
2. Overlooking other factors: The argument fails to consider other possible reasons for Jessica's increased participation in local politics. For example, she might have had a change of heart or been influenced by family or friends who are politically active. Without considering these alternative explanations, it is premature to conclude that her involvement in the political science club was the sole reason for her interest in politics.
3. Sample size: The argument only focuses on one individual, Jessica, and generalizes her experience to make a broader claim. However, drawing conclusions based on a single case may not accurately represent the overall population or account for individual variations.
To strengthen the argument or address its flaw, a more comprehensive analysis would involve examining a larger sample size, considering alternative explanations, and conducting further research to establish a causal relationship between joining the political science club and developing an interest in politics.