Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have increased the concentration of phosphorus in the local swamp above previous levels, but Conclusion the claim that the increase in phosphorus is harming the swamp’s native aquatic wildlife is false; Support the phosphorus concentration in the swamp is actually less than that found in certain kinds of bottled water that some people drink every day.
The author rejects the claim that the increase in phosphorus in the local swamp — which he concedes "may well have" occurred — is harming the swamp's native wildlife. The support he provides for his position is that the swamp's phosphorus concentration is below the phosphorus level in "certain kinds of bottled water" that "some people" drink daily.
The fact that "some people" regularly drink "certain kinds" of bottled water with higher phosphorus levels than the swamp's tells us nothing about whether the swamp's phosphorus level is harming the local wildlife or not. For one thing, maybe those people are actually harmed by drinking these brands of water; the author seems to assume they aren't, without providing evidence. Even if these people aren't harmed, it might take a much lower phosphorus concentration to harm aquatic wildlife than it does to harm humans. So the evidence the author relies on to reject the idea that the phosphorus increase is harming wildlife completely fails to support his position.
The argument is vulnerable to █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██
makes exaggerations in ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████
Incorrect. The author states the opposing claim as saying that "the increase in phosphorus is harming the swamp's native aquatic wildlife." We have no reason to think this is an exaggerated formulation of the opposing claim. There's no over-the-top language, and besides, we don't have the opposing side's formulation of their claim to compare this to. So (A) doesn't capture the flaw in the argument.
bases its conclusion ██ ███ █████████████ ██████
Incorrect. The author only makes one claim in support of his conclusion. There aren't any contradictions in his argument. The problem is that the one supporting claim he makes actually isn't relevant to his conclusion.
relies on evidence ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███████████
Correct. The author concludes that the phosphorus increase isn't harming local aquatic wildlife because the phosphorus concentration is lower than what some humans are regularly exposed to in bottled water. As we said in our analysis, we don't even know that these humans are unharmed, let alone how humans' tolerance of phosphorus compares to that of "aquatic wildlife." So the only evidence the author provides for his conclusion is in fact irrelevant.
concedes the very █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████
Incorrect. The claim the author is arguing against is the claim that the phosphorus increase is harming local aquatic wildlife. He nowhere concedes this claim.
makes a generalization ████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████ █████████
Incorrect. The author's conclusion isn't a generalization. It's a claim about the effects of the phosphorus increase in this specific swamp. And the problem with the author's evidence isn't that he doesn't specify sources for his supporting claim — it's that the claim he makes isn't relevant to his conclusion.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic