Help

The argument leads to the conclusion that the bottle labeled as "vinegar" has been mislabeled, but ignores the possibility that the box labeled as "baking soda" is what may be mislabeled. Therefore, an alternative explanation for the stated effect, that the box labeled as "baking soda" is what was mislabeled, has been ignored. Making answer choice C correct.

Sorry, I meant to write answer choice B, not C.

I need clarification

@KDA86 and @Zaviea-Gaynor, Happy to provide some clarification for you. @jrod5488, great message board participation—keep it up! We're told that a bottle labeled "vinegar" produced no fizzing when some of its liquid was added to a powder from a box labeled "baking soda." We're then told that when an acidic liquid, such as vinegar, is added to baking soda, the resulting mixture fizzes. The argument then concludes that since there was no fizzing, the bottle must have been mislabeled. But, wait a second. What if the box labeled "baking soda" was mislabeled instead? Wouldn't that have also failed to produce fizzing? This is the problem with the author's argument; it's failing to consider an alternative cause for what happened. Now that we know the flaw, let's look at the answers. Answer A is incorrect because it does not ignore this possibility; rather, this very possibility is a key component of the conclusion. Answer B says, "fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect." This is a great paraphrasing of what we said the flaw was (that the author failed to consider an alternative cause for what happened), so this is the correct answer. The alternative explanation is that the box containing the powder was mislabeled. The author did not rule out this possibility for the lack of fizzing. Answer C is incorrect because the definition of the word "fizz" does not play into the argument at all. This is not a flaw of the reasoning in the argument. Answer D is incorrect because it brings into discussed an entirely new concept—scientific principles—that was not discussed at all in the stimulus. Our concern is about the mislabeling of bottles, not scientific principles. Answer E is incorrect because there is never any mention of an intention to deceive in the stimulus, so this is not the flaw of the argument. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Im in the 143-149 range. How can I go from 158-164 range quickly?

@ravi Isn't the phrasing of B a bit off? The stem says "a flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument...." with followed up by B: "fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect" Excluding an alternative explanation is exactly what the author did, which is to not consider the alternative explanation that the Baking Soda was mislabelled. Whereas the author's flaw is that they failed to CONSIDER/INCLUDE/ETC. that the baking soda could have been the issue.