#5 - Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have

[est15]

I understand that the author makes an error when going from phosphorus concentration in the swamp is less than that found in bottled water to increase in phosphorus is not harming the swamp's native aquatic wildlife because it could be the case that the wildlife is a lot more sensitive to phosphorus than people are. But I'm failing to see how this flaw is described in C. Isn't the relevance of the phosphorus concentration in the swamp being less than that found in bottled water relevant to the argument?

[Robert Carroll]

est,

Since people drink the water but the aquatic life has to live in it, it's not been shown that a comparison between the phosphorus concentrations in these two bodies of water can be made. Thus, it's not relevant to prove "the concentration is low" that it's lower than that in a different kind of water, because the amount of water, and the function of water, are totally different when it's a person drinking it and when it's a creature living in it. Whatever the concentration is in drinking water, it's entirely irrelevant - it could be higher than it is, lower than it is, or anything, but that still wouldn't amount to any evidence that could prove something about the swamp.

Robert Carroll

[amagari]

I'm trying to be able to distinguish the flaw in reasoning just by the stimulus. What logical fallacy is happening in this problem?

[AthenaDalton]

Hi amagari,

This is an over-generalization. Just because a certain concentration of phosphorous is safe for humans doesn't mean it's also safe for the aquatic creatures who live in the swamp. It's a mistake to generalize from what is safe for humans to what is safe for all wildlife.

Best,

Athena Dalton