PrepTest 139

Incorrect. The group could be hostile to the chemical industry but still produce a good study, so this answer isn't necessary for the conclusion to hold.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is about the amount of released pollutants, how those pollutants are created is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion limits itself to comparing the company in question with other small chemical companies, so large chemical companies are out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Study - How much does each of 30 small chemical companies pollute?
Results - 5 companies account for 60% of all pollution by this group
Conclusion - 1 of these companies pollutes more than most small chemical companies

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a "tell" for what flaw is being committed. You could see it either by noting that the key premise is about a group of companies, or that the conclusion after that is about an individual company. This is a jump from something true of the whole (the 5 companies releasing 60% of the pollution) to the individual (1 of the companies releases more than most other small companies). When that's the flaw, the argument is assuming that what is true of the whole is true of the parts, and any difference between those parts would undercut the argument.

To highlight why that's a problem here, it'd be true to state that you and Michael Phelps have a combined total of at least 28 Olympic medals. Even though that breakdown is probably Micahel 28, you 0. Similarly, in the stimulus, it's possible that the other 4 companies release 60% of the pollution, and the Employee's company is responsible for 0% of it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the fuzzy math used by the Employee. Five companies combined account for 60% of the pollution from small chemical companies. That could be an even split of 12% each, or one could release 60% and the rest 0%. Without knowing how this total is split up, we can't determine if the conclusion that calls out one member of a group is valid. If the four other companies do account for about 60% of the total pollution from this group of 5, then the Employee's conclusion falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Any time there's a jump between what is true of a group or combination and what is true of a member of that group, there's a whole to part flaw. Answers that directly point this out can be correct, but so can answers about similarities and differences between the members of the group in question.

Incorrect. Even if there is significant variation in the pollution released by the other 25 companies, the Employee's company could still be responsible for more pollutants than most small chemical companies. After all, that "significant variation" would split the remaining 40% of pollution between 25 companies—even if one is responsible for 20% and the other 24 for 20%, that leaves room for a majority of small companies to pollute very little.