Self-study
Studies indicate that Support the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off: Support the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year. ██ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ █████ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████
Argument Breakdown
The author comes to a conditional conclusion: if a recent trend in water pollution levels continues, then the issue of water pollution will stop getting worse. The trend the author cites in support is that the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off. We can see this by comparing this year's and last year's water pollution: both years generated almost the same amount.
Objective: Identify a Flaw
When thinking about the argument's flaw, remember that the conclusion is a conditional statement. We're looking for a flaw in the claim that water pollution will stop getting worse if the rate of pollution truly stops increasing. So we have to think of other factors that might interfere: even if the rate of pollution stays stable from now on, how might it be possible that the problem of water pollution will still get worse?
One oversight in the argument is that new pollution might worsen the effects of existing pollution. Even if the rate of pollution stops increasing, that still leaves us with a fixed amount of new pollution generated each year. If those annual amounts of pollution compound with each other, the overall problem could still keep getting worse. Another oversight is that pollution may not all be equally toxic, so if the type of water pollution is getting worse, that could continue to worsen the water pollution problem.
6.
The reasoning is questionable because ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████
a
some types of █████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███ █████
The author doesn't address this possibility, but that's fine, because this possibility doesn't affect the argument. If some pollution doesn't affect organisms, that makes no difference to the strength of the argument.
b
the types of █████ █████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████
The author doesn't address this possibility, but this also isn't a vulnerability in the argument. If (B) were true, that would only help the author's case: pollution getting less toxic would provide additional support.
c
the leveling-off trend ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████
(C) would be a great answer if we weren't dealing with a conditional conclusion. The author already accounts for this possibility by making the conclusion conditional on the leveling-off trend continuing.
d
air and soil █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████
Because the author is only dealing with the problem of water pollution, air and soil pollution aren't relevant. If the conclusion was about pollution in general, this could be a good answer.
e
the effects of █████ █████████ ███ ██████████
In other words, even if the leveling-off trend continues, each year the pollution could have worse effects as it accumulates with the pollution of previous years. This identifies a vulnerability in the argument—this is a possibility the author didn't consider, but which which is very relevant to the argument.