Subscription pricing
Confused as to why the answer is C...
I thought the flaw of the argument was "just because its tested before it enters the market doesn't mean that its safe before you dump it into the river." None of the AC's matched my prephase, and I saw C as irrelevant.
0
2 comments
Thanks for the reply! It makes a lot of sense now, I also spotted that the dump was "long established"... so if C is true, in that the federal law only recently was instated, and before it was, 40k chemicals were dangerous, then we can call cap on the author!
Appreciate the help!
The LSAC pushes us to use the author's evidence against them. So, if the author is citing a rule to support their argument, we should seek to undermine the applicability of such rule. The assumption in the representative's argument is that the cited law applies in this case. The stimulus specifies that the law requires that any new chemical be tested for safety. AC C is saying that the chemicals in question may not have been tested for safety, in accordance with the cited law, because many chemicals were already in circulation long before testing was required.