Subscription pricing
Show summary
Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. ███ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █ ███████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The industrialist concludes that his factory’s emissions are not a health risk to nearby residents. He supports this by saying that the only testimony about the emissions comes from local residents, but only a trained scientist can assess the danger, and none of the residents are scientists.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The industrialist’s reasoning is flawed because he fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Even if the residents’ testimonies cannot prove that the emissions are a health risk, the industrialist still needs to provide evidence for the conclusion that the emissions are not a health risk.
In other words, he assumes that the environmentalists’ conclusion is false simply because their support is weak.
4
Show answer
The reasoning in the industrialist's ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
impugns the motives ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████
b
does not consider ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████
c
presents no testimony ████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ████
d
fails to discuss ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████
e
equivocates between two █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ █████