PrepTest 149

Incorrect. The argument doesn't use conditional language, so this answer choice doesn't describe the flaw in the argument. The Columnist never establishes that something is either sufficient or necessary for the opposing point, and it also doesn't raise an issue that's logically sufficient/necessary.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Wildlife activists: Cable lines themselves don't pose a threat to wildlife, but putting them next to power cables increases the risk that animals will get electrocuted, so this practice should be banned.

Columnist: Some animals die even when cable lines are buried underground, so the activists' argument is bad.

Answer Anticipation:
The Columnist rejects the argument of another group, so we should dig into the reasons why. It's not an ad hominem attack—the Columnist doesn't point out bias or hypocrisy on the part of the Activists. Instead, the Columnist points out that, even in places where the solution proposed by the Activists is present (cable lines not by power cables), the problem still persists—some animals die. From that, it concludes that the opposing point's argument fails, not that the practice shouldn't be banned, so we don't have an absence of evidence flaw, either.

Therefore, the rebuttal itself must fall short of addressing the point made by the Activists. They claim that the practice of putting cable and power lines next to each other makes it "easier" for animals to climb near electric lines, which increases the "risk[]" of electrocution. That doesn't commit them to believing that ending this practice will prevent all electrocutions—just lower them. The Columnist, however, treats their argument as if they believe ending the practice will completely solve the problem of animal electrocutions. Since the Columnist rebuts a different point than the one made by the Activists, her argument fails. And it fails because it treats their argument as if it presents a complete solution to the given problem instead of a partial one, as they claim.

Answer Explanation:
The proposal is meant to prevent animal electrocutions. It could lower the number of electrocutions without eliminating them and still be successful. However, the Columnist uses "some animals" still being electrocuted as enough to invalidate the solution, which is a flawed rebuttal.

Key Takeaway:
Ad hominem attacks and absence of evidence flaws are common in arguments with two viewpoints, so you should check for them when the argument has a structure similar to this one. However, they won't always be present—when that happens, dig in to see why the rebuttal doesn't work. A lot of the time, it'll be because the point addressed by the rebuttal isn't the same as the one made by the opposing point—a straw man flaw.

Incorrect. The argument states that the Activists' "particular argument" fails, so other potential arguments in favor of banning the practice are out of scope.

Incorrect. As we noted in the Anticipation, the Columnist addresses the argument itself, not the Activists, with no accusation of bias or hypocrisy, so it doesn't commit an ad hominem flaw.

Incorrect. The Columnist doesn't bring up any alternatives that would also work. She also doesn't reject the proposal—she says that one argument in favor of it fails, but that leaves open the possibility that she'd get behind the proposal for other reasons.