PrepTest 142

Incorrect. The opposing point raises economic concerns; the argument raises public health concerns. The author never links those public health concerns, the pollution, or the toxins in fish back to economic effects, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't raise a general principle. Additionally, the foreseeable effects include both health and economic ones, and the author prioritizes the health ones over the economic ones.

Incorrect. While the author of the argument does raise negative effects, she never states that the opponents of the ban have failed to weigh them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point—Banning fishing in Eagle Bay will have a negative economic impact
Counterevidence—Fish from Eagle Bay almost all have toxins above safe levels, thus endangering public health
Conclusion—The ban should be enacted

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus is a debate over a proposed ban on fishing in Eagle Bay. The opposing viewpoint doesn't want the ban enacted, whereas the author of the argument does want it enacted. The opposing point brings up negative economic effects, but the author never addresses that. Instead, she shifts to a discussion of negative public health impacts of allowing continued fishing. So she makes her argument not by addressing the opposing point but by introducing another consideration that she believes (but doesn't establish) is more important.

Answer Explanation:
The reason the author believes the ban should be enacted is that fishing "could . . . have grave effects on public health," so this answer reflects her argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an author reaches the opposite conclusion as the opposing point, see if she attacks their evidence/argument, presents new evidence, or does a bit of both. Whichever bucket the rebuttal falls into will be important in considering the answers.

Incorrect. The author argues that the ban would prevent grave health effects presumably from people not eating the fish, not that the ban would lower toxin levels.