Self-study
Activist: Support Medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects have been linked to pollutants in water. ███████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ██ ██████ █████████████ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████████ █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████████████ ████████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the only effective way to reduce significantly the incidence of most cancers/birth defects is to stop industries that are known to produce certain organic pollutants that have been linked to those conditions. The author supports this conclusion by asserting that most cancers/birth defects are incurable, so we need to aim at preventing them. In addition, industries that produce pollutants are not likely to comply with strict environmental regulations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes there’s no other significant cause of cancer and birth defects besides the pollutants. This overlooks the possibility that something else, such as people’s diets, might cause a significant number of cancers/birth defects. If so, then we might be able to reduce significantly the incidence of those conditions without stopping the industries.
14.
A flaw in the activist's █████████ ██ ████ ██
a
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ █ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██████████
If this possibility is true, then we might be able to significantly reduce cancers/birth defects through means that target those other factors. We wouldn’t necessarily have to stop the industries that produce organic pollutants.
b
does not consider ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ██ █████ ██████
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument. The author’s concerned about harm to humans; if the pollutants also hurt nonhumans, the author could find that additional reason we need to stop the industries that make those pollutants.
c
takes for granted ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██████
The author doesn’t take this for granted. The author OVERLOOKS the possibility that certain effects (cancer/birth defects) can be produced by several different factors.
d
fails to consider ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████
The author does consider this — she states as a premise that the industries are unlikely to comply adequately with regulations.
e
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████
The author’s conclusion doesn’t recommend stopping use of the pollutants. All the conclusion says is that the only way to significantly reduce cancers/birth defects is to halt the industries. Whether there are benefits to the pollutants doesn’t affect the author’s reasoning.