Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our facto

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

OK, I’m actually starting to get sick of this flaw because I’ve seen it so many times. Defeating an argument does not prove the opposite of that argument’s conclusion! Imagine: “Nathan is an atheist who believes there is no God. But Nathan can provide no evidence that there is no God. Therefore Nathan’s argument cannot stand. And therefore, God certainly does exist.” No, jackass, that’s not a good argument. Just because I can’t prove there isn’t a God doesn’t somehow prove that God does exist.

That’s exactly what this argument does.

Here’s another, similarly-flawed, argument: “The defendant claims that he was injured on the night of the murder, and therefore not strong enough to have raised the sledgehammer over the victim’s head while she was sleeping. But we have video footage of him at the county fair that night, winning a giant teddy bear on the ‘test your strength’ game. Therefore, even though we didn’t present any evidence that the defendant had motive, or was at the scene of the crime, or had fingerprints on the sledgehammer, or is actually connected in any way to the victim, we have conclusively proven (based solely on the fact that we have disproven one facet of his defense) that the defendant is the murderer.” Uh, no you haven’t. Stop it.

A) No, the argument doesn’t do this. The argument doesn’t say, “We shouldn’t listen to the residents because they are biased.” Instead, the argument says, “Only scientists are qualified,” which is a substantive reason to eliminate the testimony of the residents, rather than naked discrimination.

B) No, this is just irrelevant.

C) Well, yeah. If scientists are the only ones that know whether or not the emissions are safe, you’ll need to provide testimony from those scientists in order to claim that the emissions are safe. It’s definitely not enough to go, “Only scientists know for sure, so we can’t listen to the residents, and even though the scientists didn’t testify at all, we have therefore proven that the emissions are safe.” That ain’t how it works. So this is a good answer.

D) No, the net value of the factory isn’t at issue here. The only thing at issue is whether the emissions are safe or unsafe.

E) This would be the answer if the argument had unfairly used the term “health risk” in two different ways. I don’t see that happening here. I thought our answer would more clearly say, “Disproof of an argument doesn’t prove the opposite of the argument’s conclusion.” But C, even though it doesn’t say exactly that, does point out that the industrialist hasn’t presented his own argument, and has instead tried to rely solely on defeating his opponent’s argument to prove his own conclusion.

So our answer is C.