- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8929
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:00 am
#25870
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
This stimulus, which discusses a dispute between a farmer and his neighbor regarding pesticide runoff, begins with the farmer’s conclusion, that the neighbor is wrong when she claims that his pesticides are spreading to her farm in runoff water. In essence, the farmer is saying that his pesticides are not spreading to her farm in runoff water.
The farmer attempts to provide some evidence in support of his conclusion, but the facts he offers are irrelevant to his conclusion. First, he says that he uses only organic pesticides, and that there is no evidence that organic pesticides harm either people or domestic animals. However, these facts deal with the potential harm of the pesticide runoff, rather than whether the pesticides are entering the neighbor’s land.
Next, the author says he is careful to avoid spraying on his neighbor’s land. While this fact is closer to the type of evidence that is needed, it still misses the mark. The neighbor has not claimed that the farmer is intentionally spraying on her land. Instead, the issue is whether the pesticides are reaching her farm by means of runoff water.
So, in this Flaw question, your prephrase is that the farmer does not provide any evidence in support of his conclusion. Although the farmer made several statements of fact, none of them were logically relevant to the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because it misstates the farmer’s conclusion, which did not deal with the potential harm to people or domestic animals from exposure to organic pesticides.
Answer choice (B): As with choice (A), while the farmer presented a premise consistent with this answer choice, i.e., that he is careful to avoid spraying on his neighbor’s land, the conclusion was not about whether he in fact sprays on her land despite his caution.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This choice is correct because it describes the farmer’s failure to address the neighbor’s concern about runoff water. Though the farmer’s conclusion addresses her concern, he offers no evidence to support that conclusion and instead addresses collateral matters.
Answer choice (D): While it is accurate to say the farmer’s argument does not provide an alternative explanation for the presence of pesticides on the neighbor’s land, there does not appear to be any requirement for the argument to do so. Therefore, this choice, while accurately describing a portion of the stimulus, does not describe a flaw within it.
Answer choice (E): As with choice (D), while it is true that the argument ignored the possibility that pesticides might have dangerous effects other than harming people or domestic animals, that possibility was not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion was limited to the question of whether the farmer’s pesticides are entering the neighbor’s farm via runoff water. Since it is not a flaw to ignore irrelevant information, this choice does not describe a flaw in the farmer’s reasoning.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
This stimulus, which discusses a dispute between a farmer and his neighbor regarding pesticide runoff, begins with the farmer’s conclusion, that the neighbor is wrong when she claims that his pesticides are spreading to her farm in runoff water. In essence, the farmer is saying that his pesticides are not spreading to her farm in runoff water.
The farmer attempts to provide some evidence in support of his conclusion, but the facts he offers are irrelevant to his conclusion. First, he says that he uses only organic pesticides, and that there is no evidence that organic pesticides harm either people or domestic animals. However, these facts deal with the potential harm of the pesticide runoff, rather than whether the pesticides are entering the neighbor’s land.
Next, the author says he is careful to avoid spraying on his neighbor’s land. While this fact is closer to the type of evidence that is needed, it still misses the mark. The neighbor has not claimed that the farmer is intentionally spraying on her land. Instead, the issue is whether the pesticides are reaching her farm by means of runoff water.
So, in this Flaw question, your prephrase is that the farmer does not provide any evidence in support of his conclusion. Although the farmer made several statements of fact, none of them were logically relevant to the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because it misstates the farmer’s conclusion, which did not deal with the potential harm to people or domestic animals from exposure to organic pesticides.
Answer choice (B): As with choice (A), while the farmer presented a premise consistent with this answer choice, i.e., that he is careful to avoid spraying on his neighbor’s land, the conclusion was not about whether he in fact sprays on her land despite his caution.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This choice is correct because it describes the farmer’s failure to address the neighbor’s concern about runoff water. Though the farmer’s conclusion addresses her concern, he offers no evidence to support that conclusion and instead addresses collateral matters.
Answer choice (D): While it is accurate to say the farmer’s argument does not provide an alternative explanation for the presence of pesticides on the neighbor’s land, there does not appear to be any requirement for the argument to do so. Therefore, this choice, while accurately describing a portion of the stimulus, does not describe a flaw within it.
Answer choice (E): As with choice (D), while it is true that the argument ignored the possibility that pesticides might have dangerous effects other than harming people or domestic animals, that possibility was not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion was limited to the question of whether the farmer’s pesticides are entering the neighbor’s farm via runoff water. Since it is not a flaw to ignore irrelevant information, this choice does not describe a flaw in the farmer’s reasoning.
