Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 1 · Question 22

Incorrect. Trace amounts don't necessarily pose a health risk, and the conclusion is that exporting increases the risk, so even if there is some risk from domestic crops, imported ones can increase it.

Incorrect. But certain pesticides are, and they're used on products that are then imported by the US.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
The US exports pesticides that are banned for domestic use, but they're then used on products that are imported into the US, so exporting these pesticides increases health risks to the US.

Answer Anticipation:
Honestly? This argument doesn't seem that bad to us! If you had trouble spotting the flaw, you're in good company.

However, there is something that you should have noted as being potentially flawed—the comparative element in the conclusion. The argument concludes that the practice of exporting banned pesticides "increases" health risks to US consumers. That means that there's a baseline of risk, and this practice increases it above that level.

Since we're tasked with weakening this argument, it needs to be flawed, so it must be the case that the argument hasn't established an increase of risk. In other words, it's possible—somehow—that the practice doesn't actually increase the risk.

How can it be possible that the US exporting these pesticides doesn't increase the health risks to US consumers? That only makes sense if the pesticides would be used by these countries even if they couldn't buy it from the US. And that would be the case if other countries also manufacture and sell these pesticides. Let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that these pesticides are available whether or not the US manufactures and exports them. If that's the case, then the US selling them internationally doesn't increase the risk to US consumers because they'd face that same risk even without the US selling the pesticides.

Key Takeaway:
Be careful with comparative causal language! It's easy to see "increases" in the conclusion and think that it's just stating that something causes a health risk. However, the comparative nature of that causal word shows that the risk is higher than it would be without the cause. That can seem like it should always happen, but there could always be other causes or sources of a cause that will make up for the removal of one source.

Incorrect. Even if the pesticides are more dangerous in other places, they could still increase the health risks to the US.

Incorrect. The argument is talking about pesticides that are banned in the US, so this answer is out of scope. Other countries banning pesticides doesn't address the health risks posed by ones banned by the US.