Self-study
Environmentalist: Support When bacteria degrade household cleaning products, vapors that are toxic to humans are produced. ██████████████ █████████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████
Summary
The environmentalist concludes that converting landfills to public parks is damaging human health. Her reasoning? Cleaning products are found in landfills, and when these products are degraded by bacteria, toxic vapors are produced.
Notable Assumptions
We know that there is potential for toxic vapors to be produced in these landfills, but we don’t know for sure that they are. For the vapors to be produced, we need to know that bacteria is present.
Also, even if the vapors are guaranteed to be produced, we would still need to assume that these vapors are not being cleared before opening the parks to the public.
8.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████████████ ████████ █████████
a
In at least ████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████████ █████████
This is a version of our prediction, and it is necessary. We identified the need for bacteria to be present, and (A) is stating that some landfills fulfill this requirement. If no landfills have bacteria, then there is no threat of vapor, and no damage to human health.
b
Converting a landfill ████ █ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████
This is a conditional that is not necessary. It wouldn’t be a correct sufficient assumption answer either, because it’s switching necessary and sufficient.
c
If a practice ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ███████
The negation of this is “If a practice involves... then it doesn’t necessarily cause some damage to human health.” This means that it still could cause damage, so the argument is not ruined. Be careful not to go too far in negation.
d
When landfills are █████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████
Irrelevant. The argument concludes that the practice is harmful. It isn’t necessary that we have something to combat the harm.
e
If vapors toxic ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████
Too strong. We don’t need a conditional rule that speaks for all landfills. We only need for this to be true in one instance in order for the conclusion (that there is damage) to stand a chance.