PT104 · S1 · Q11 A local chemical plant produces

There's no before/after curious fact in the evidence. The conclusion is not offering us an explanation for a curious fact. It's offering a predicted comparison. The flaw in this argument is that the conclusion compares horses to most other animals, but the evidence never told us whether most other animals also have the bacteria that cause tetanus living in their digestive tracts. So, the flaw here is Assuming a Difference, whereas the flaw in the original argument was Failing to Consider Alternate Explanations.

We identify a potential cause. This plant's pesticides can cause sterility. Being undernourished can lead to infection. We show a before / after? When the plant started up, the otters soon got less sterile The animals in the largest zoo are not undernourished. This answer goes off the rails with that second ingredient. In order for it to match, it should have been describing something that had gotten an infection. Then it could conclude, that the thing that got the infection clearly / definitely was undernourished.

This is just about classifying some weird fossils. There's no cause/effect relationship identified in the evidence. There's no before/after relationship identified in the evidence. The conclusion isn't given us a causal storyline for how one thing caused another.

The fact that the argument seems pretty valid already tells us this can't be a match. There is a causal claim in the evidence, but it's way stronger than what the original argument has: Pesticides can cause sterility in otters vs. Only a bear could cause this track If we had said, "ONLY pesticides can cause sterility in otters, then it wouldn't have been a flawed argument". So that's distinction is enough to kill this answer. There is also no before/after premise.