Columnist: It is impossible for

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct59% picked this

   The argument fails to recognize that there may be convincing statistical evidence even if individual

   Why this is right

   This identifies the flaw exactly. The columnist treats inability to pin down individual cancer causes as if it ruled out all evidence. But statistical evidence — comparing cancer rates near vs. far from reactors, or before vs. after lax-standard periods — could show that lax radiation contributed to the increase even though individual causes remain unknown. This is how public health establishes causal contribution all the time. The argument fails to recognize this.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   59%
2. B

   Causal Flaw1% picked this

   The argument inappropriately presupposes that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused

   This describes a "post hoc" flaw — assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. The columnist isn't making any causal claim at all; the columnist is denying that causal evidence can exist. Post-hoc reasoning is the opposite kind of mistake from what's happening here.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Description7% picked this

   The argument inappropriately draws a conclusion about causes of cancer in general from evidence drawn from a

   The columnist isn't generalizing from a particular case. The argument is the reverse — using a general claim about individual causes being unknowable to deny that any evidence about general causes can exist. There's no specific case being generalized from.

   7%
4. D

   Bad Description2% picked this

   The argument ignores other possible causes of the increase in cancer rates near the

   The columnist actually cites other possible causes (environmental toxins, smoking, diet, genetics) — that's the columnist's evidence. Far from ignoring them, the argument relies on them. This answer mischaracterizes the argument's structure.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Description31% picked this

   The argument concludes that a claim about a causal connection is false on the basis of a lack

   The columnist isn't concluding the causal claim is false — only that no evidence for it can exist. There's a meaningful difference between "we can't prove it" and "it's false." This answer pins the wrong charge on the argument; the columnist is making an epistemic claim, not a metaphysical one.

   31%