roVanG wrote:
(A) The city’s residents often disregard federal guidelines when it comes to public health issues because the standards are overly stringent.
WRONG. Doesn't matter what the residents normally do, the argument talk about why the water is safe to drink(B)
The most dangerous contaminant in drinking water is lead.(C) Statistical sampling is not the most accurate basis for determining health threats even though the federal government and the city must depend on them.
WRONG. Statistics don't have to be most accurate since lead levels are anyway higher than the allowed levels(D) Lead levels even slightly above federal standards do not have long-term effects on people’s health.
Tempting choice but WRONG according to me. The argument talks about short term effects. This talks about long term(E) People feel safer when they heed warnings from the federal government even if they are not entirely accurate.
WRONG. Not relevant to the argumentPremise:
14% of samples have lead levels above allowed standards
Lead is still low in levels to cause any immediate threat
Conclusion: City residents can drink this water all they want
My final choices were down to B and D. Since this is an assumption question, we are looking for a choice without which the argument falls apart. My answer is B since if there was something more dangerous than lead in the water, then the conclusion that people can drink as much as they want would not hold true (even in the short term).
VeritasKarishma nightblade354 please correct me if i'm wrong
Option (B) is not correct.
(B) The most dangerous contaminant in drinking water is lead.
We do not need to assume that lead is the most dangerous contaminant. Perhaps arsenic is far more dangerous but our water has no arsenic or it has such a low concentration that it is harmless, we don't know.
If we negate the option, we get:
Lead is not the most dangerous contaminant in drinking water.
Does that impact our argument? No.
Yes, our conclusion is: the water is safe to drink.
There is an assumption that it has no other contaminant in a harmful concentration. But do we need to assume that lead is the most dangerous? No.
Now review the argument and options again.