Consumer advocate: TMD

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   The possibility that more data about a pesticide's health effects might reveal previously unknown risks at low doses warrants caution in

   This isn't a rule that helps us to conclude that a practice is not acceptable, so we could stop reading there. But it also does a poor job of tying into the premise, which was about the 20% of people who eat a high dose.

   9%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   The consequences of using a pesticide are unlikely to be acceptable when a majority of the population is

   The conclusion half of this is somewhat weak ("unlikely to be acceptable"), but it would do something to strengthen the argument if the premise matched. However, the premise doesn't match. This rule says majority of the population practice unlikely likely to ingest pesticide ? to be acceptable But the evidence in this argument was that only 20% are likely to ingest the pesticide.

   4%
3. C

   Correct69% picked this

   Use of a pesticide is acceptable only if it is used for its intended purpose and the pesticide has been shown not to

   Why this is right

   This rule said pesticide isn't used for intended purpose use of pesticide or ? not acceptable pesticide hasn't been shown to be harmless for whole population We know that this pesticide has been shown to be safe when consumed at an average dose, but since one portion (20%) of the population consumes it at far higher than an average dose, then we don't know whether this pesticide is going to be harmless for the whole population. Since we haven't shown that this would be safe for the whole population, we've triggered the rule, and it delivers us the conclusion we sought: not an acceptable practice.

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

   69%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match Bad Premise Match12% picked this

   Society has a special obligation to protect small children from pesticides unless average doses received by the population are low and have not been

   This says: average dose received by population are not low society has a or ? special obligation average dose has been to protect small shown to be harmful children to children's health The right side of this rule doesn't give us the "not acceptable practice" language we're looking for in the conclusion. And the trigger doesn't match the premises. The average dose received by the population is either low (if you consider that 80% of people have none of it), or it's average (if you consider that it's average). We don't have any means of quantifying whether a given dosage is high or low. Also, it has not been shown that this pesticide is harmful to kids' health.

   12%
5. E

   Weak: sometimes Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

   Measures taken to protect the population from a harm sometimes turn out to be the cause of a more serious harm to

   This is a super weak idea, so it would never be right on a Principle-Justify question. It's also hard to match up with anything. Was there a measure taken to protect the population from a harm? Not that I remember.

   7%