Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our facto

Question

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. The only testimony presented in support of this contention comes from residents of the communities surrounding the factory. But only a trained scientist can determine whether or not these emissions are dangerous, and none of the residents are scientists. Hence our factory’s emissions present no health risk.

The reasoning in the industrialist’s argument is flawed because the argument

(A) impugns the motives of the residents rather than assessing the reasons for their contention

(B) does not consider the safety of emissions from other sources in the area

(C) presents no testimony from scientists that the emissions are safe

(D) fails to discuss the benefits of the factory to the surrounding community

(E) equivocates between two different notions of the term “health risk”

Bunuel · Answer

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.

unraveled · Answer

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. The only testimony presented in support of this contention comes from residents of the communities surrounding the factory. But only a trained scientist can determine whether or not these emissions are dangerous, and none of the residents are scientists. Hence our factory’s emissions present no health risk.

The reasoning in the industrialist’s argument is flawed because the argument

(A) impugns the  motives of the residents  rather than assessing the reasons for their contention - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) does not consider the safety of  emissions from other sources  in the area - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(C) presents no  testimony from scientists  that the emissions are safe - CORRECT. The best we can get after POE.

(D) fails to discuss the  benefits of the factory  to the surrounding community - WRONG. As it is not concerned with the idea risk.

(E) equivocates between two different  notions  of the term “health risk” - WRONG. 'Notions' diverts from the core of the argument.

Answer C.

KarishmaB · Answer

Context: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. The only testimony presented in support of this contention comes from residents of the communities surrounding the factory. Premises: Only a trained scientist can determine whether or not these emissions are dangerous. None of the residents are scientists. Conclusion: Our factory’s emissions present no health risk. The argument tells us that only a trained scientist can determine whether the emissions are dangerous. After that it goes on to claim that the emissions present no health risk. But it doesn’t give any testimony from scientists that the emissions present no health risk. Let’s look at the options now. (A) Impugns the motives of the residents rather than assessing the reasons for their contention The argument questions the credentials of the residents, not their motives. (B) Does not consider the safety of emissions from other sources in the area Other sources are irrelevant. (C) Presents no testimony from scientists that the emissions are safe Correct. If only scientists can determine whether emissions are dangerous, then a testimony was required from the scientists to establish that emissions are safe. (D) Fails to discuss the benefits of the factory to the surrounding community Irrelevant (E) Equivocates between two different notions of the term “health risk” No different notions of the term discussed. Answer (C) Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our facto

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

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our facto

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