The studies showing that increased

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct75% picked this

   Research shows that the incidence of certain major illnesses, including heart disease and cancer, is decreased in communities that have a modern power plant.

   Why this is right

   This conclusion has the same "X is harmless" vibe as the original: there is no increased health risk associated with living next to a nuclear power plant. The evidence also presented a situation in which "a good outcome was achieved even though some X was present": the incidence of some major illnesses was lower in places with power plants, including some that had nuclear power plants. There's even a part of this that matches the original that we didn't put into our initial synopsis because it didn't seem crucial. The original said "the good outcome happened, whether the fruit / veggies were organic (pesticide-free) or with pesticides". Here we're saying the good outcome happened whether the power plant was traditional (non-nuclear) or nuclear.

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

   75%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Research has shown that there is no long-term health risk associated with a diet consisting largely of foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol

   This conclusion doesn't sound anything like "X is harmless". It says, "X is a more useful strategy for achieving A than Y is." Whatever the status of this argument, flawed or not, it's not going to match the original flaw if the conclusion isn't trying to argue that something has no risk associated with it.

   1%
3. C

   Weak Premise Match9% picked this

   Research has shown that young people who drive motorcycles and receive one full year of extensive driving instruction are in fact less likely to

   This conclusion has the "X is harmless" vibe. driving a motorcycle has no increased risk, compared to driving a car. The original conclusion was "eating fruit / veggies with pesticide residue has no increased risk, compared to fruit / veggies without pesticides residue". So the evidence should be saying, "There was a good outcome in this situation, even though motorcycles were partially involved". It somewhat does, but it's a weaker match than is the correct answer. Also, the flaw in this argument might be more directed as us saying, "Wait a sec ... in this study, where the motorcyclists ended up having a lower rate of being involved in accidents, why are we crediting the motorcycle? Isn't it more likely that the motorcycle group had a lower accident rate because of one full year of extensive driving instruction?" The original argument had nothing like that. It wasn't a study comparing organic fruit / veggies to nonorganic fruit / veggies that had pesticide residues but also had been fortified with extra vitamins (something giving it a health-boost akin to these motorcyclists who got a safety boost from one year of extensive driving instruction).

   9%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match11% picked this

   Research has shown that kitchen cutting boards retain significant numbers of microbes even after careful washing, but that after washing fewer microbes are found

   This conclusion correctly captures the "there's no increased risk with X" gist we need. There's no increased risk from using wooden cutting boards. The evidence should be showing that "a good outcome was achieved, regardless of whether they used wooden or plastic". Instead, the evidence says "a bad outcome was achieved either way (lingering microbes), but a better outcome (fewer lingering microbes) was achieved with wooden boards". That doesn't match the original well. We didn't hear that fruit / veggies with pesticides had some advantage relative to organic fruit / veggies.

   11%
5. E

   Weak Conclusion Match Topic Trap4% picked this

   Research shows that there is no greater long- term health benefit associated with taking vitamin supplements than with a moderate increase in the intake

   This conclusion feels a little off, since it's saying, "There's no increased risk when you do X, so long as you also do Y". The original conclusion didn't say, "There's no increased risk from pesticide residues, as long as you wash them really well." We should also be very suspicious of this answer choice, given that it's recycling the topic of fruits and vegetables. It's almost unheard of for any Parallel or Analogy correct answer to actually use the same / similar topic as the original.

   4%