Activist: Medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects have bee

It is mentioned that the causes are organic and non organic pollutants, but nowhere it is mentioned that the industrial pollutants are the only cause, so Answer choice A-highlights the possibility of other sources

Some conditions have been linked to pollutants in water.
Pollutants enter the food chain and reach people, where they accumulate in tissue.
Since these conditions are incurable, we need to aim at their prevention.
Such industries are unlikely to comply adequately with strict environmental regulations.


Conclusion: Clearly, the ONLY effective way to reduce significantly their overall incidence is to halt industries known to produce these pollutants

What is the flaw? The conclusion says that only effective way to reduce incidence is to halt industries.

But that needn't be the case. There would be other issues that cause the incidences. We could control one of them to reduce incidences.
Note that the aim of the plan is to reduce incidences. Then the only way needn't be shutting down these industries. Perhaps a certain lifestyle is responsible for many cases too.

(A) fails to consider the possibility that a significant number of occurrences of cancer and birth defects may be caused by preventable factors other than industrial pollutants

Correct. As discussed above.

(B) does not consider the possibility that pollutants can cause harm to nonhuman species as well as to human beings

Non human species are beyond the scope of our argument.

(C) takes for granted that certain effects can be produced independently by several different causes

It actually does not consider that certain effects can be produced by different causes.

(D) fails to consider whether industries may voluntarily decrease their output of pollutants

The argument tells us that "Such industries are unlikely to comply adequately with strict environmental regulations.". It is given to us.

(E) fails to consider the possibility that chemicals now classified as pollutants have some beneficial effects not yet discovered

Beneficial effects of pollutants are irrelevant. We are talking about reducing incidents of these diseases.

Answer (A)

Thanks for your response Karishma

The major deal breaker in C is that the author does consider other causes that create the same effect, and eventually the author finds that the most effective way to reduce the incidence significantly is by halting industries. So, this tells us that the author considered other factors, but the option C says that the author takes it for granted and does not consider that same effect can be created by different causes.

Posted from my mobile device

Activist: Medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects have been linked to pollutants in water. Organic pollutants such as dioxins, and inorganic pollutants such as mercury, are ingested by fish and move up the food chain to people, where they accumulate in tissue. Since most cancers and birth defects are incurable, we need to aim at their prevention. Clearly, the only effective way to reduce significantly their overall incidence is to halt industries known to produce these pollutants, given that such industries are unlikely to comply adequately with strict environmental regulations.

A flaw in the activist's reasoning is that it

(A) fails to consider the possibility that a significant number of occurrences of cancer and birth defects may be caused by preventable factors other than industrial pollutants

(B) does not consider the possibility that pollutants can cause harm to nonhuman species as well as to human beings

(C) takes for granted that certain effects can be produced independently by several different causes

(D) fails to consider whether industries may voluntarily decrease their output of pollutants

(E) fails to consider the possibility that chemicals now classified as pollutants have some beneficial effects not yet discovered

Only A and D stand a chance.
If someone is stuck with conclusion - the highlighted part - then D is certainly strike like a revelation. But the language used in the conclusion is strong that suggests either author missed some other causes or damn sure about the his/her conclusion which in itself a fault. Why so?? Nowhere in the passage it is mentioned that what were the causes of pollutants - dioxins and mercury.

Unless the cause is clear the conclusion can't be.

Answer A.