Every year, new reports appear concerning the health risks posed by certain substances, such as coffee and sugar. ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ █████ █████████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████
Our argument says that decisions about one’s 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 experts’ advice in the articles. The articles could focus on coffee’s 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 isn’t much support for the author’s conclusion.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
The argument takes ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███████
The argument presumes, ███████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████
The argument fails ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ███████
The argument presumes, ███████ █████████ ██████████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████
The argument fails ██ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████