Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. There's no reason to believe that the statistical claims about either the decline in lead poisoning or the percentage of houses with lead-based paint are unreliable.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, but the premises here are distinct from the conclusion, and the assumption is about other sources of lead poisoning—again, distinct from the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Lead poisoning has decreased, but some homes in this area still have lead paint, so if we get rid of it, we'll finally eliminate lead poisoning.

Answer Anticipation:
That's a pretty strong conclusion—lead poisoning will be "eradicated." There's no wiggle room there—for the conclusion to be true, there can't be any more risk of lead poisoning in the area.

Do the premises establish that this threat will be completely eliminated? Well, we know that leaded gasoline has been phased out, and the argument is based on getting rid of any remaining lead paint. However, the argument never establishes that there are no other sources of lead out there that could pose a health hazard. So while eliminating lead-based paint will certainly lower the risk of lead poisoning, it's not guaranteed to "eliminate" it unless there are no other sources of lead out there. This argument treats a partial solution as a complete solution.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the argument treats the elimination of two sources of lead as if it completely eliminates the threat of lead. Since the argument never establishes that these are the only sources of lead in the area's environment, it's treating a partial solution as guaranteeing the problem will be completely solved.

Key Takeaway:
Viewing arguments through a problem/solution lens can really help focus your thinking when it applies. And remember that whenever an argument concludes that a certain solution will completely solve the problem, make sure that there aren't aspects of the problem not addressed by that solution.

Incorrect. The argument's conclusion is conditioned on the lead paint being removed, not on it being economical or feasible, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Any child living in a house with lead paint presents a risk of lead poisoning, so the argument doesn't assume that every child lives in such a home—just that at least some do.