A class of chemicals called phthalates can be toxic to humans who come

A. Irrelevant. Comments on the amount but not the toxicity of the chemical.benzene might be significantly more or significantly less toxic. ...the benzene discussion doesn't add much to the argument regarding legislation.

B. If anything this weakens the argument. No legislation needed because the industry self regulates.

C. Irrelevant. Doesn't contribute to argument in favor of banning the chemical in question. Are those more dangerous chemicals regulated? We don't know.

D. This weakens the argument...the point of the legislation being argued for is to improve human health by banning the chemical...

E. Correct. Gives an example of the effect of the chemical on the health of those working with it. Shows that the chemical is in dangerous concentrations in plastics.

Answer E.

Posted from my mobile device

A class of chemicals called phthalates can be toxic to humans who come into contact with them. Because phthalates present such a high health risk, legislation is needed to regulate the phthalates that are contained in plastics and plastic-derived materials.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?

The question ask for a strengthener for the conclusion that legislation is needed to regulate the phthalates that cotained in plastic since they are very toxic. So, the strengthener will be like Phthalates causes high death rate of employees in companies using them .

Analyzing the options using POE.

A. The amount of dangerous toxins contained in phthalates is much less than the amount contained in equal amounts of benzene, another dangerous chemical.-Incorrect.
Out of scope. This option does not talk about the uses of benzene. It just compares the amount of toxicity of the two materials.

B. Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most manufacturers avoid the use of phthalates.-Incorrect.
Weakener. This option says that within the jurisdiction manufacturers avoid the use of phthalates. So, the legislation may not be needed at all

C. There are methods of producing plastics that are significantly more toxic than methods that involve phthalates.-Incorrect.
Out of scope. This option talks about other methods and not the method concerned in the argument.

D. No significant beneficial effect on human health would result if phthalates were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
-Incorrect.
Out of scope. This option talks about the improvement of human health upon the en-action of the legislation whereas we need to know whether phthalates had any negative effect on the human health.
E. In industries where phthalates are used to manufacture plastics, the concentration of toxins results in high employee illness rates.
-Correct.
This option matches our pre thinking and hence is correct

E I think is wrong because it is already mentioned in the passage "they cause illness in humans"

What if I tell you that I'll ask my employees to use face-guard and gloves so that they won't contact toxins, meanwhile I will still be able to produce dangerous plastic goods for my consumers? The E is very weak option.

This option states that pthalates are posing a harmful effect on workers and so strengthen the argument.
The reasoning you are providing is no where in scope of the option. What you are doing is a typical mistake of going too deep to ignore the real world situation.
In this way, infact, you can provide n no. og reasons to contradict yourself, when its actually not required.

IMO E.

Between B and E, on a closer look B says the area under "proposed legislation" has "most" manufacturers who already avoid using Phthalates. If that's the case when why do we need the legislation for? E supports the need of legislation by further proving how Phthalates actually causes health hazards. Hence, E.

IMO the answer should be E as only E gives a cse where the effects of P have harmed people. This is exactly what we want as the strengthener.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Solution: E. This Strengthen question asks you to find an additional premise supporting the conclusion that phthalates should be regulated in order to reduce health risks. Choices A and C both make a comparison that is out of scope (and even if they were in scope, they would tend to lessen the need for legislation). Choice B does not address the manufacturers who do use phthalates. The fact that there may be relatively few of them does not make the need for legislation more urgent. Choice D lessens the need for legislation by contradicting one of the premises, and accordingly actually weakens the argument. Choice E is correct, because it provides further evidence that phthalates are harmful.

Dear VeritasKarishma,

Could you please elaborate on why B is incorrect. Also, according to the solution- 'The fact that there may be relatively few of them does not make the need for legislation more urgent'- how is the urgency of the legislation under question in the argument.

Flaw in the argument- The author assumes that after the legislation, the use of phthalates will be regulated.
And choice B clearly focuses on this assumption. Choice B says that most of the manufacturers will avoid using phthalates.

Choice E- Also strengthen the argument. I was confused between these two answer choices and I selected B.

agarwal1993

Phthalates can be toxic to humans who come into contact with them.
Phthalates present a high health risk

Conclusion: Legislation is needed to regulate the phthalates that are contained in plastics and plastic-derived materials.

We need to strengthen it.


A. The amount of dangerous toxins contained in phthalates is much less than the amount contained in equal amounts of benzene, another dangerous chemical.

Irrelevant that it is less toxic than something else.

B. Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most manufacturers avoid the use of phthalates.

"Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation" - means the area in which the proposed legislation will have authority.
In this area, most manufacturers avoid the use of phthalates. This means that manufacturers already avoid it so is the legislation needed? May be not. It doesn't strengthen our conclusion. In fact, if anything, it implies that legislation is not needed.

C. There are methods of producing plastics that are significantly more toxic than methods that involve phthalates.

Again, irrelevant that there are even more toxic methods available.

D. No significant beneficial effect on human health would result if phthalates were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.

The point is that phthalates create health problems. Banning it will not create problems. Banning it may not make the health better but at least the health won't worsen.
Anyway, this option doesn't support banning for sure.

E. In industries where phthalates are used to manufacture plastics, the concentration of toxins results in high employee illness rates.

Correct. Phthalates when used for manufacturing plastics do affect the employees badly. So it supports our need for legislation.

Answer (E)

VeritasKarishma

Hi Karishma why would D be wrong? we know that phthalates causes health issues so if they were banned as a result of regulations than we won't have any health problems related to this substance, on the other hand E is kinda repeating what we know; it causes health issues!

We need to provide support to "regulate phthalates". What will support it? Giving some data about how phthalates can impact health adversely.
(E) does that. It tells us that phthalates impact the health of workers and causes them to be ill.
(D) says that banning phthalates will not improve health. First of all, we are not aiming to "improve" health. We are talking about ensuring that health doesn't deteriorate. Also, if we are given that banning will not help, it doesn't support the ban. We need to give data that tells us that banning/regulating is a good idea.