Self-study
Columnist: Conclusion It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards that were once in effect at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates near such sites. ███ █████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that there can’t be real evidence that relaxed radiation standards at nuclear reactors caused the rise in cancer rates nearby. She supports this by saying that it’s impossible to know if a particular case of cancer was caused by radiation, toxins, smoking, poor diet, or genetics.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The columnist's conclusion doesn't follow from her argument. She assumes that because the cause of individual cancer cases can't be known, there can't be evidence linking radiation at nuclear reactors to higher cancer rates nearby. But evidence could still exist that explains the overall rise in cancer rates, even if it doesn't explain the cause of each case.
17.
The argument's reasoning is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
The argument fails ██ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████
Even if the columnist’s premise is true and causes of individual cancer cases can’t be known, her conclusion doesn’t follow. Evidence could still exist that explains the overall rise in cancer rates near the reactors, even if it doesn't explain the cause of each individual case.
b
The argument inappropriately ███████████ ████ ████ ███████ █ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████
The columnist doesn’t make this assumption. Rather than assuming that cancer that follows exposure to nuclear reactors was caused by those reactors, she argues that there’s no real evidence linking nuclear reactors to the rise in nearby cancer rates.
c
The argument inappropriately █████ █ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ █████ ████ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████
The columnist doesn’t use evidence from a particular case of cancer or draw a conclusion about causes of cancer in general. Instead, she concludes that there’s no evidence linking nuclear reactors to the rise in nearby cancer rates.
d
The argument ignores █████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████████
The columnist lists many other possible causes of cancer and argues that one can’t know the cause of a cancer case at all.
e
The argument concludes ████ █ █████ █████ █ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████
The columnist doesn’t conclude that nuclear reactors do not cause cancer. She just concludes that there cannot be evidence that nuclear reactors cause cancer.