4. A Story of Taking Breaks Leading to Death

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

In this section, I take reference from the book Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data by Charles Wheelan.

Let’s image that, Tom thinks people who take short breaks at work are far more likely to die of cancer, and you would like to defeat this wrong view.

You are learning the procedure. Please notice which answers the defender and challenger choose to use. But I have to clarify, the answers are not fixed and those provided are just suggestions, any reasonable and creative answers could be used, and there is a room of creativity.

4.1 The battle begins!

Tom (the defender): People who take short breaks at work are far more likely to die of cancer (compared with people who don’t).

What should you, the challenger, challenge? Let’s say you use challenger answer 2 — asks for examples or reason.

You (the challenger): Please give a reason justifying your view. (challenger answer 2) Tom: Because, there is a study of 36,000 office workers, who reported taking regular ten-minute breaks during the workday were 41 percent more likely to develop cancer than workers who don’t. (defender answer 5) You: It follows that the reason can support your view in this case. (challenger answer 4) Tom: I accept. (defender answer 1) You: It follows that the reason cannot support your view in this case. That is, the study result has flaws. (challenger answer 3 — gives sword without reason) Tom: Why? (defender answer 2) You: Because, in the study, most of those respondents smoke frequently during breaks. Smoking is the major cause of cancer in this case, and there is no causation between taking regular breaks during the workday and cancer. (challenger answer 3 — gives reason) Tom: Well, I accept. (defender answer 1) You: Ha! (challenger answer 5)

Here, challenger finds the first contradiction by the defender:

The defender thinks:

The reason can support the view in this case (when Tom answers “I accept.” to “It follows that the reason can support your view in this case[…]” by challenger) The reason cannot support the view in this case (when Tom answers “Well, I accept.”)

This is obviously a contradiction.

4.2 The Battle Continues

You: Then it follows that people who take short breaks at work are not far more likely to die of cancer. (challenger answer 3 or 4) Tom: I accept. (defender answer 1) You: Ha! Ha! Ha! (challenger answer 5)

4.3 The Battle Is Done

The debate is finished, because defender gives up the foundational view, “People who take short breaks at work are far more likely to die of cancer”.

Challenger finds the second (and the final) contradiction of defender:

People who take short breaks at work are far more likely to die of cancer People who take short breaks at work are not far more likely to die of cancer

This is obviously a contradiction.