PT8.S1.Q03 - health experts generally agree that smoking

Seriousbird

Can someone help me understand this one? I got it wrong and I understand why the correct answer is correct but not why the incorrect answers are incorrect.

I thought the flaw was Tim using his grandpa as a counterexample to the experts position. My thought was even though the experts had no way of knowing about this specific case, if they conducted studies/experiments they would have accounted for outliers such as Tim's grandpa.

A) This is correct because Tim uses counterexample (his grandpa) to refute a probabilistic conclusion (it is very likely to be harmful to the smokers health). The reason this is correct is also because "very likely" allows for other cases such as Tim's grandpa. I was wavering between this one and B but went with B.

I really can't figure out a way to eliminate this answer choice. The information was specific because it was T's grandpa, the only thing I can think of is maybe "information unavailable to experts in the field" and the fact that perhaps the experts were including outliers in their research/assessments prior to making a claim about the future health of smokers. ???

C) I think C is wrong because the experts do not explicitly discount the information of Tim's grandpa, they never mention it.

D) This I'm completely lost on.

E) It never indicates experts that are in agreement with each other and how they derived that agreement, it's focus is on discounting/eliminating their stance on the health of long term smokers.

Thank you in advance, I am most appreciative.

inactive

Bumping so more people see

Charlie Musick

I'll take a shot at it. My interpretation of B is that while it may or may not describe Tim's argument (since his grandfather could be unknown information), the fact that he is challenging the opinion with something unknown doesn't make his argument weaker. In fact, that could strengthen his argument.

In a different problem, B could also describe a different argument where Tim cites previously unknown research and had a credible argument.

A, on the other hand, does demonstrate a weakness. Only one counterexample to support his argument can be considered a major weakness.


C. Yep. It is not explicitly discounted.

D. Tim doesn't argue that health and longevity are unrelated to each other. He's claiming that smoking didn't impact his grandfather's heath, which is demonstrated by his longevity.

E. You got it.

MrSamIam

Here's my take:

Correct Answer: (A) - He does refute a probable conclusion (smoking is bad in the long run) with ONE counterexample (the case of his grandfather).

Incorrect Answers:
(B) - Likely the trap answer choice. Who says this information was unavailable to experts in the field? It's likely that it wasn't, but they never said it wasn't. More importantly, although probably factually true, it's not the flaw. He uses the "grandfather is healthy" card as a counterexample to the conclusion. Even more subtle is the fact that we still don't know if his grandfather died of natural causes. Smoking could have been what killed him...even though he made it to 90.

(C) - The expert never EXPLICITLY discounts said case (grandfather) as an exception. It's IMPLICITLY discounted as an exception ("very likely" = possible that it won't happen)

(D) - What? No it doesn't. This one is way too broad. We're talking about smoking + health, not health in general.

(E) - Completely unrelated to the stimulus. He isn't attacking the basis for their conclusion.