Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. While the Farmer does seem to assume that there being no evidence of harm proves that they're harmless, that's not related to his conclusion that his Neighbor's claim about runoff water containing pesticides is wrong, so this isn't a flaw in his reasoning.

Incorrect. Whether or not the Farmer avoids spraying pesticide onto his Neighbor's land is out of scope since the conclusion is about pesticide spreading via runoff water.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Neighbor: Your pesticides are getting on my property via runoff water.

Farmer: My pesticides are harmless and I don't spray them on your property, so you're wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever a second speaker rebuts an initial argument, always check to see if they address the point raised by that speaker. Here, the Neighbor claims that the Farmer's pesticides are leaking onto her farm via runoff water. The Farmer's discussion of harm has nothing to do with that, and saying he doesn't spray the pesticides onto her property doesn't address if it can get there via runoff.

So the Farmer's argument is flawed in that he doesn't address the charge that the Neighbor makes!

Answer Explanation:
Neither the discussion of harm nor the claim that he doesn't spray the pesticide onto her property addresses the Neighbor's claim that these pesticides are still getting to her property via runoff water, so this answer describes the flaw in the Farmer's argument.

Key Takeaway:
Always check to see if the second speaker addresses the actual points made by the first speaker. Frequently, they'll address a separate point while acting as if they addressed the real point, making their argument flawed.

Incorrect. If the Farmer could fully rule out pesticides from his farm as a source of pesticides on his Neighbor's land, there would be no need to provide an alternative source.

Incorrect. The Neighbor's argument isn't about harm, and the Farmer's conclusion is that her conclusion is wrong, so any discussion about harm is out of scope.