Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: unlikely to be reliable0% picked this

   relies on statistical claims that are likely to

   What grounds do we have for thinking that this statistic about remaining homes with lead paint is "likely to be unreliable"? LSAC would only want us to question evidence if it were inherently sketchy or being presented in a way that made it vulnerable to an objection. They haven't given us any reason to impugn these stats.

   0%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular2% picked this

   relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the

   When an answer says that "the evidence restates the conclusion" or "assumes the truth of the conclusion", it's referring to Circular reasoning. This conclusion isn't repeating the evidence. The evidence is a statistic about 25% of homes. The conclusion is a prediction about what would happen if we eliminate lead paint. tantamount = essentially the same as (I never formerly resigned from 7/11, but when I stopped showing up to work that was tantamount to tendering my resignation)

   2%
3. C

   Correct86% picked this

   fails to consider that there may be other significant sources of lead in

   Why this is right

   Whenever answer choices on Flaw start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility they are trying to present some potential Objection. We can ask ourselves, "Would it hurt this author's argument, if we said that there are other significant sources of lead in the area's environment?" Definitely! That's a good way to argue the anti-conclusion. The author is assuming that lead paint in homes is the only significant source of lead in the area, because she reasons that "if we get rid of lead paint in homes, we will have eradicated lead poisoning in the area".

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

   86%
4. D

   Out of Scope: can be eliminated0% picked this

   takes for granted that lead paint in homes can be

   No author is ever assuming the possibility or likelihood of their IF conditions. When an author makes a hypothetical conclusion, we can't strengthen or weaken the argument by talking about the IF-part. For example, suppose I said, "If Obama ran against Biden in the 2024 election, Obama would win" You can't affect that conclusion one way or the other by talking about whether or not Obama is allowed to run for President again, or whether he'd ever consider doing so. You can only discuss that conclusion by putting yourself in the hypothetical world of the "If-clause": okay, let me pretend that Obama is running against Biden in 2024 and try to think of how I might argue that Obama would not win. Similarly, this author is just saying "IF we lived in a hypothetical world with no lead paint in homes". He's not saying it's possible to get there, that it's cheap or easy to get there, that we probably will/won't get there. He's only saying, "IF we were teleported to that world, there would be no risk of lead poisoning in the area".

   0%
5. E

   Too Strong: all12% picked this

   takes for granted that children reside in all of the homes in the area that

   The author does not need to assume that every single one of those homes (the 25% that still have lead paint) has a child living there. Sure, she's assuming that some of those houses have children living there. But it doesn't affect her argument in the slightest if not all of those lead paint homes have children. If there are 1000 homes in the area with lead paint, she needs all 1000 to have kids in them? Would her argument really suffer if it was not all, or 999 out of 1000? Of course not.

   12%