Gilovick's Flaws In Logic

There are many flaws in logic. According to Gilovick one flaw in logic is, not looking at the counter factual. What would have happened if the opposite condition held? Are the “facts” being supplied only showing one side, providing biased results? Gilovick uses the example of conception after adoption to explain. Gilovick states, “ So it is with the erroneous belief that infertile couples who adopt are subsequently more likely to conceive. Our attention is automatically drawn to couples who conceive after adopting, but not to those who adopt but do not conceive.”( Gilovick 3) In the article, “Study: Behavior in kindergarten liked to adult success”, the author states, “ for every one-point increase in a child’s social competency score in kindergarden, they were twice as likely to obtain a college degree, and 46% more likely to have a full time job by age 25.” (Wallace) What percent of children would have gotten a full time job by the age of 25 and obtained a college degree, if they weren’t given a one-point increase?

On the other hand the article also stated, “ For every one-point decrease in a child’s social skill score in kindergarten, he or she had a 67% higher chance of having been arrested in early adulthood, a 52% higher rate of binge drinking, and a 82% higher chance of being in or on a waiting list for public housing?”(Wallace) What are the chances this would of happened anyway, even if the child didn’t have point