Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. The Industrialist impugns the expertise of the residents, not their motives, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The conclusion limits the argument to the factory's emissions, not other emissions, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Environmentalists: A factory's emissions pose a health risk.

Industrialist: Your only evidence is testimony by people who aren't experts, so the emissions pose no health risk.

Answer Anticipation:
As with most Errors in Reasoning questions, if we know common indicators of specific flaws, we can quickly identify the flaw in this argument.

Here, the Industrialist reaches a conclusion that's the polar opposite of the Environmentalists. They say the emissions from the factory pose a health risk; the Industrialist says they don't. This is different from a conclusion that the factory might not pose a health risk.

What's that based on? Well, she doesn't provide any evidence of her own. Instead, she calls the evidence of the opposing point into question. When an argument reaches an opposite conclusion solely by attacking the opposing point instead of providing evidence that their own conclusion is correct, that argument is committing an Absence of Evidence flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the Industrialist lacks positive evidence supporting her conclusion, instead relying on the inadequacy of the opposing point's evidence. It's describing an Absence of Evidence flaw and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
In an Errors in Reasoning question where there are two viewpoints that reach polar opposite conclusions, there's a good chance that the argument commits an Absence of Evidence flaw. If the main point of the argument relies on the inadequacy of the opposing point instead of evidence as to why it's own conclusion is true, then you've found your flaw.

Incorrect. The debate isn't about the overall balance of pro and con for the factory, but rather whether the emissions pose a health risk, so any benefits are out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the two mentions of health risk are referring to anything other than the common definition/understanding of that phrase, so this answer is incorrect.