Every year, new reports appear concerning the health risks posed by certain substances, such as coffee and sugar. βββ ββββ ββ βββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ βββββ βββββββ βββββββ ββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββββ βββ βββββ βββββββ ββββ βββββ βββββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ βββ ββββ βββββββ βββ βββββββ βββ βββββββ βββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββββ βββββββ
Our argument says that decisions about oneβs health should not be based on what experts say, because articles from unknown sources in different years published conflicting information about whether or not coffee is good for health.
The author makes a broad conclusion about using expert opinions in guiding health-related decisions. However, his premises are very specific, referring only to two contradictory articles. These premises do not necessitate that there is something wrong with the expertsβ advice in the articles. The articles could focus on coffeeβs effects in differing amounts, different groups of people, different aspects of health, or use different data. Unless we know that the articles are discussing the same health issue using the same data, there isnβt much support for the authorβs conclusion.
Which one of the following ββββ ββββββββββ βββββββββ β ββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββ
The argument takes βββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββ
The argument presumes, βββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββ βββββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββββ βββββββ
The argument fails ββ ββββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ βββββββ ββ βββββ βββββ ββββ βββββββ
The argument presumes, βββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββββββ ββββ βββββββ ββββββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββ ββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ
The argument fails ββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββ ββ βββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββ ββ ββββ ββββββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββ