#6 - Melchior: Some studies have linked infants' consumption

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

[Rebecca Salazar]

Hi!
I chose D rather than A.
My reasoning was that, because Melchior only spoke to the "cow's milk" (rather than "cow's milk formula") benefit in his argument, this was a distortion of the opposed reasoning. The rewording of the other premise by omitting "formula" constitutes a distortion. Therefore by saying this was an erroneous conclusion he thereby "attacked" the argument. And this was the reason M thinks was the wrong reasoning. What am I missing? Thank you!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Rebecca,

Thanks for the question! I'll respond with how LSAC would see this: they won't agree that this is a distortion. The first sentence references "formula made from cow's milk" and then the second references "cow's milk formula," and so it's clear that cow's milk is a primary component of this formula. To then continue on to discuss the benefits of cow's milk itself when it's clearly in the formula is not too much of a stretch in their eyes (or mine, for what it is worth). You can continue on to discuss components in this matter without committing flawed reasoning.

Let's consider the argument for a moment. First, it's a commonsense fact in LSAC's view that mother's nurse children with breast milk. So that's a "known" option as a basic fact of life. so here comes Melchior saying this cow's milk formula has been linked to diabetes. But regardless of that fact, it's okay to use it because it has some great nutrients. but shouldn't we consider the alternative and compare the two? Perhaps mother's milk has all the same nutrients and none of the drawbacks. And that's where Melchior's argument makes an error; it focuses on one option despite the drawbacks without looking elsewhere at all.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[zoezoe6021]

Could you please explain why E is incorrect?

Melchoior confuses an absence of evidence in support of a claim (no evidence to support 'parents should feed cow milk formula to infants') with the existence of evidence against a claim (cow milk leads to diabetes)

Therefore, Melchoire fills out the gap by giving a supportive evidence (cow milk is an excellent source of several nutrients)

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E describes a Lack of Evidence flaw, zoezoe6021, which did not occur. That would be the right answer if the argument had been something like "there is no evidence that drinking cow's milk is bad for infants, therefore it is not bad for them." But there IS evidence in this case - the studies mentioned in the first line - and there is ALSO evidence to support Melchior - the last sentence, about nutrients. Thus, this argument is not based on a lack of opposing evidence. Instead, the author commits another type of evidence flaw, wherein they use SOME evidence in favor of their position as if it's enough to overcome all possible objections, failing to consider that the negatives might outweigh the positives in this case, and also failing to consider the possibility of alternatives that have the same benefits without those drawback.