#5 - Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning has declined

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning, CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

In this stimulus, the area resident begins by pointing out the successful reduction in child lead
poisoning that has taken place since the early 1970s. When the country stopped using leaded gas and
banned lead paint, lead poisoning dropped, but apparently there are still lead paint hazards in 25% of
local homes. The area resident then jumps to the conclusion that getting rid of the lead paint in those
homes would completely eradicate the entire lead poisoning problem:

• Premise: Since the 1970s, when lead was eliminated from both gasoline and paint,
  cases of childhood lead poisoning have declined steadily.
  
  Premise: According to recent statistics, 25% of the homes in this area still have lead
  paint which is hazardous.
  
  Conclusion: If we eliminate lead paint from the homes mentioned, then childhood lead
  poisoning will finally be completely eradicated.

The stimulus is followed by a Flaw question, the answer to which should certainly be prephrased: the
problem with the argument in the stimulus is that the area resident presumes that taking care of the
lead paint problem will solve the more general problem of lead poisoning.

Answer choice (A): There is no basis for the claim presented in this answer choice; the stimulus does
not provide any reason to presume that the referenced statistics are probably unreliable.

Answer choice (B): This incorrect answer choice describes the logical flaw of circular reasoning:
when a premise and its conclusion are logically equivalent, nothing has been proven. This, however,
is not the problem in this case. Instead, the resident’s mistake is in assuming that eradicating lead
paint will eradicate all hazardous lead.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The area resident doesn’t seem to realize
that lead might exist in hazards other than paint—although the stimulus mentions only gas and paint,there is no suggestion that these are the only two sources.

Answer choice (D): The author does not take this for granted. Rather, the resident’s claim is based on
a condition: “if we eliminate lead paint…” There is no discussion of economic viability.

Answer choice (E): The area resident does not presume that every lead paint-hazardous home is
inhabited by a child, but rather that getting rid of all lead paint will eliminate the whole problem.

[T.B.Justin]

Is it also the resident's mistake in assuming that at least some children live in those local homes or that at least some children live in that area?

The argument starts with a general causal claim and then goes to something more specific in a local area. The resident never states that children live in those local homes or in that local area but he concludes childhood lead poisoning will finally be eradicated as a result of eliminating lead paint from those homes.


Side note: I have been focused on assumption question types lately, so I ignored the "fails to consider" answer choice, even though, I would have usually been inclined to give those the most attention.

[portilloa3]

For the interest of associating this answer type to the what I am reading in the Logic Reasoning Bible,
would it be safe to categorize this flaw as a False Dilemma?

According to the Logic Reasoning Bible, the False Dilemma is defined as:
"... assumes that only two courses of action are available when there may be others. "

[Robert Carroll]

TB,

There is no such flaw because the relation between lead paint in a home and childhood lead poisoning isn't required by the stimulus to be that direct. Lead paint in homes may poison children by getting on the clothes of their teachers in their teachers' houses, for instance. So there was no need to assume that there were children in those homes or even those areas.

Portilloa,

Categorizing this as a False Dilemma is fine, because it's ignoring alternatives, which is the key failure of any false dilemma flaw. Don't get hung up on the "assumes...only two courses of action" language, because ignoring alternative courses of action is just a more specific type of false dilemma.

Robert Carroll

[kch0522]

Hi,

Seems to me the author is assuming the flaw in E. Here's why: you can't eradicate (ie reduce to 0%) childhood lead poisoning unless all children live in homes w/ the lead paint in it. Put another way, if you eliminate the lead paint in those homes but1 child lives in a home where there is no lead paint, then you haven't actually eradicated childhood lead poisoning, since that child can get lead poisoning elsewhere.

Where am I going wrong?

Many thanks,
Kyle

[Zach Foreman]

kch,
Let's go backwards through your comment. You say, "that child can get lead poisoning elsewhere" If you believe that, then you should choose C "fails to consider that there may be other significant sources of lead in the area’s environment"

I don't understand your statement "you can't eradicate (ie reduce to 0%) childhood lead poisoning unless all children live in homes w/ the lead paint in it." This would diagram to Eradicate CLP ->All children live in homes with lead paint. But I don't think this is true nor do I think the resident thinks it's true.

Now to the answer choice itself. Why do you think the resident takes it for granted? Perhaps the resident thinks that children live in, say, half of the homes with lead paint(12.5 %), eliminating these would still eradicate lead poisoning, provided it were the only source. . The point is, the big assumption the resident makes is that lead paint is the only remaining source of lead poisoning. You even acknowledge that this is not necessarily true.

Another way of saying it, the resident's conclusion is "If we eliminate the lead paint from all homes with it (25 percent of all homes), we will eradicate childhood lead poisoning." Why is this not necessarily true? Sure, it might be overkill, but so what? It would still work. But we want to find some reason why it might not work, a reason to believe that there would still be lead poisoning. And that could only be if there is some other source of lead, which is answer C.

[bebeg3168]

Hello,
I noticed the author never mentions children, only childhood lead poisoning (dating back to 70s), at this point the children of the 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s are adults. I would think that E only pertains to children, when in fact there are others that could suffer from lead poisoning, one not need to be an adult to get lead poisoning. Is my reasoning accurate?

[Robert Carroll]

Bebe,

The author's conclusion is about childhood lead poisoning, so any way that adults might get lead poisoning is irrelevant unless it's also a way children could get it.

Answer choice (E) is simply wrong because the author's argument does not depend on an assumption that children live in any of the homes with lead paint. The author thinks that eliminating lead paint will eliminate childhood lead poisoning. The author is committed to the idea that some children's exposure to lead comes from lead paint, but does it need to be in their homes? In fact, even if in their homes, does EVERY home with lead paint have to have children in it for children to get lead exposure somewhere? Clearly not. This is why answer choice (E) is not correct.

Robert Carroll