Verification of truth – causal fallacy: "The conclusion drawn is: the presence of calcium in milk makes it white. Rice, too, is white. Therefore rice also contains calcium." Evaluate the truth value of this conclusion.

Introduction / Context:
This item tests recognition of a common reasoning error: confusing correlation with causation and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Milk is white and contains calcium; the argument jumps to “calcium causes whiteness,” then generalizes to “anything white (e.g., rice) must contain calcium.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise A: Milk is white.
• Premise B: Milk contains calcium.
• Claimed rule: “Whiteness is caused by calcium.” (not established)
• Observation: Rice is white.

Concept / Approach:
Even if X has property P and Q, we cannot conclude that P is caused by Q. Many substances are white for varied reasons (particle size, structure, pigments), and many calcium-rich items are not white. The correct logic would require a validated rule like “If (contains calcium) then (white)” and its confirmed causality—neither is given.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Ask whether reversing the putative rule holds: Do all calcium-containing things appear white? No (e.g., spinach, almonds). Do all white things contain high calcium? No (e.g., refined sugar).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
True and Probably true wrongly accept an unproven causal law. Can’t say is too weak: we have sufficient reason to reject the argument's logic, not merely suspend judgment.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming one feature causes another because they co-occur; generalizing from a single example; mistaking necessary/sufficient conditions.

Final Answer:
False