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

Question

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

LSAT

Abhishek009 · Answer

The stimulus talks about Organic pollutants such as dioxins, and inorganic pollutants such as mercury (Water Pollutants) causing cancer and fails to consider the possibility of other factors which may be contributing to the cancer and birth defects.

Answer must be (A)

RohitSaluja · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja  can you please help here

SonamRa · Answer

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

KarishmaB · Answer

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)

RohitSaluja · Answer

Thanks for your response Karishma

ajayvikram4628 · Answer

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

Posted from my mobile device

unraveled · Answer

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.

agrasan · Answer

The author assumes that those industrial pollutants are the only cause of cancer and concluded that it is the only effective way.

(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
 This is the  flaw , the author assumes that it is  necessary  that's why it is the  only effective way  but what if there are other preventable factors  (like storing food in plastic containers for long time, etc.) , then it won't be the only effective way and the conclusion breaks down.

(B) does not consider the possibility that pollutants can cause harm to nonhuman species as well as to human beings
  Not a flaw , non-human beings are not relevant for the argument.

(C) takes for granted that certain effects can be produced independently by several different causes
  Not a flaw , this option is actually opposite, the author didn't consider that certain effects can be produced by different causes. He assumed that there is only one cause.

(D) fails to consider whether industries may voluntarily decrease their output of pollutants
  Not a flaw , we are already given  "...given that such industries are unlikely to comply adequately with strict environmental regulations."  so this option doesn't help us much.

(E) fails to consider the possibility that chemicals now classified as pollutants have some beneficial effects not yet discovered
  Not a flaw , how does it matter if there are benefits, cancer will anyway be caused by those pollutants.

finisher009 · Answer

1. Deconstruct the Argument
First, let’s identify the core components of the activist’s argument:
• Premise: Certain pollutants in water are linked to cancer and birth defects.
• Premise: These pollutants enter the human body through the food chain.
• Premise: These diseases are often incurable, so prevention is critical.
• Premise: Industries producing these pollutants are unlikely to follow regulations.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the only effective way to significantly reduce these diseases is to halt these industries.

2. Identify the Logical Gap (The Flaw)
The activist makes a significant logical leap. The argument establishes that industrial pollutants are a cause of cancer and birth defects. However, it concludes that stopping the source of these specific pollutants is the only effective way to reduce the overall incidence of these diseases.
The flaw is this assumption of scope. The argument treats industrial pollutants as if they are the sole or most significant cause of all cancers and birth defects. If other factors are also major causes, then halting these industries might not significantly impact the overall rates of these conditions, and it certainly wouldn’t be the only effective strategy.

3. Evaluate the Options
Now, let’s test the answer choices against this identified flaw.
• (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.
 This directly hits the nail on the head. If a large number of cases are due to other factors (like genetics, smoking, diet, or other environmental toxins), then the activist’s conclusion that halting these specific industries is the “only effective way” to reduce the overall incidence is fundamentally flawed. This is the correct answer. 
• (B) does not consider the possibility that pollutants can cause harm to nonhuman species as well as to human beings.
 This is irrelevant. The argument is specifically about preventing cancer and birth defects in humans. Harm to other species is outside the scope of this particular argument’s conclusion. 
• (C) takes for granted that certain effects can be produced independently by several different causes.
 This is the opposite of the flaw. The activist’s error is failing to consider other causes, not taking them for granted. The activist acts as if there is only one important cause. 
• (D) fails to consider whether industries may voluntarily decrease their output of pollutants.
 The argument explicitly addresses this by stating that industries are “unlikely to comply adequately with strict environmental regulations.” The activist has already dismissed this possibility, so it’s not a flaw they overlooked. 
• (E) fails to consider the possibility that chemicals now classified as pollutants have some beneficial effects not yet discovered.
 This is a distraction. The potential for undiscovered benefits doesn’t negate the known harm (cancer and birth defects) that the argument is trying to prevent. 
 Conclusion

The primary reasoning error is oversimplification.

The correct answer is (A) because it precisely identifies this flaw: the argument ignores other potential causes, which undermines the claim that halting industries is the “only effective way” to reduce the overall incidence of these medical conditions.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards