PT128.S3.Q6

PrepTest 128 - Section 3 - Question 6

Hide analysis

Melchior: Some studies have linked infants' consumption of formula made from cow's milk to subsequent diabetes. ████████████ ███████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████████████

Summarize Argument

Melchior concludes parents should feed cow’s milk formula to their infants, even though some studies have linked infant consumption of cow’s milk formula to diabetes. As support, Melchior says that cow’s milk provides nutrients that are beneficial for infants’ development.

Identify and Describe Flaw

We know that cow’s milk formula has been linked with diabetes. From the information given, it could still be the case that there are other formula options that provide the beneficial nutrients without the risk of diabetes.

Show answer
6.

The reasoning in Melchior's argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██

a

defends a certain ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █ ███████ ███████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ███████

This is the flaw. Melchior says that parents should feed cow’s milk formula to their infants (despite the connection with diabetes) because of the beneficial nutrients. This argument doesn’t consider that other types of formula could provide nutrients without the diabetes risk.

87%
b

draws a conclusion ████ ██████ ████████ █ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████

This is descriptively inaccurate. This answer choice describes circular reasoning, which does not occur in Melchior’s argument.

1%
c

inappropriately introduces normative ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████

This is descriptively inaccurate. The conclusion is normative (”parents should feed cow’s milk formula to their infants”).

3%
d

distorts an argument ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █████████ ████████

This is descriptively inaccurate. Melchior does not distort an argument against cow’s milk formula (he simply states a potential risk associated with cow’s milk formula), nor does he attack a distorted argument.

4%
e

confuses an absence ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ █ █████

This is descriptively inaccurate; Melchior does not take lack of support for an idea as evidence that that idea is false.

4%

Confirm action

Are you sure?