The probability of avoiding

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct60% picked this

   The argument ignores the possibility that, even though a practice may have potentially negative consequences, its elimination may

   Why this is right

   Is there a practice that may have potentially negative consequences here? Sure, we could flip the chain we discussed and say that eating more dairy can lead to more fat which can lead to an increased risk of heart disease. Is the author ignoring the possibility that eliminating dairy might also have negative consequences? Sure, maybe by cutting out dairy you don't get enough calcium or protein and suffer osteoporosis or some other sort of problem. In a sneaky way, this answer addresses the separation of between "lessening your risk of heart disease" and "maintaining good health". It's saying, "before you cut out dairy, because of the negative risk associated, you should probably what good it's doing for you and what potential negative risks to your overall health are associated with having no dairy." If an answer has the syntax "fails to consider that EVEN IF ⎽⎽⎽⎽ , it may still be ⎽⎽⎽⎽⎽", then it will work as long as it's saying "fails to consider that EVEN IF [something from the evidence], it may still be that [something that would hurt the conclusion]".

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

   60%
2. B

   No Impact10% picked this

   The argument fails to consider the possibility that there are more ways than one of decreasing the risk of

   This feels pretty tempting, because we might think about objecting "Why do we have to get rid of dairy, which might do some good things for us? Maybe there's a different way to get less fat and thus less risk of heart disease?" The problem with that is that this author never said we need to get rid of dairy for the sake of reducing our heart disease risk or improving our chances of maintaining good healthy. He only said that if we got rid of dairy, we would see these salutary results. We can only arguing with him by saying "quitting dairy would not leave us better off". It's not an objection to anything he said to say, "Doing something else could be even better for our health".

   10%
3. C

   Out Of Scope: ought3% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing justification, that factors that carry increased risks of negative consequences

   There's nothing normative or prescriptive in any of this language, so we can't accuse the author of saying we should eliminate dairy. Her argument is only describing what would happen if we did eliminate dairy.

   3%
4. D

   Not Accurate18% picked this

   The argument fails to show that the evidence appealed to is relevant to

   Since the conclusion is about "if you quit dairy, ⎽⎽⎽⎽ would happen" and the evidence includes "if you quit dairy, ⎽⎽⎽⎽ would happen", it's self-evident that the evidence is relevant to the conclusion. Naturally, the evidence is not proof of the conclusion, but our complaint with this logic isn't that the premises are totally irrelevant.

   18%
5. E

   No Impact10% picked this

   The argument fails to consider that what is probable will not

   The author is only talking about increasing / decreasing probabilities. She is never promising that something probable will occur, so we can't object to her by saying, "Sometimes things that are probable don't occur".

   10%