PrepTest 116

Incorrect. Close! First, let's assume that the Toxicologist is a researcher (which isn't clear, so this might invalidate the answer). With that out of the way, the Toxicologist's concern is more general and includes humans, and the hazard in the statement in question is only to rats, so there's no indication that the Toxicologist wants to prevent dioxin from killing rats.

Incorrect. This answer would reflect a debate where one side is making an argument for using dioxin because it kills rats while the other is arguing to ban it. Here, however, there's no indication that causing cancer in rats is a benefit.

Incorrect. First, the statement in question doesn't support the claim about research on humans. Second, that claim is that such research probably" never will be done, so this answer doesn't even properly describe the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Research — Dioxin causes cancer in rats
We're . . . not going to test this on humans (for obvious reasons)
Therefore — Dioxin should be banned

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here concludes a recommendation—dioxin should be banned. Why? Because research shows it causes cancer in rats. We don't know if it causes cancer in humans, but the Toxicologist points out that we're probably not going to set up a study where we feed humans dioxin to see if it also gives them cancer—for obvious ethical reasons.

So the conclusion about banning dioxin is supported by the effect it has on rats, and an abundance of caution that something that kills them is probably not great for humans. The statement in question is the results of this rat research, so let's find an answer describing it as a premise.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the statement in question as a premise supporting the conclusion's recommendation. Since we probably won't (thankfully) test dioxin on humans, we have to use the effect it has on rats to make a call on banning it.

Key Takeaway:
Research will almost always serve as a premise in an argument. Start by seeing if the results line up with, contradict, or seemingly contradict the conclusion, and define the role from there.

Incorrect. Similar to (C), the opening line isn't support for the statements about human research, but rather an additional premise that adds to that premise to justify the conclusion.