Farmer: My neighbor claims

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   It treats lack of evidence that organic pesticides harm people or domestic animals as proof that

   According to this answer the author goes from saying "there is no evidence that organic pesticides harm people or animals" to concluding "thus, organic pesticides cannot harm people or animals". But the conclusion is nothing like that. The conclusion is, "My pesticides are not spreading to my neighbor's farm via runoff water." (This answer describes an Unproven vs. Proven False move)

   8%
2. B

   Too Strong: usually Not Our Objection17% picked this

   It presumes, without providing justification, that being careful to avoid something usually results

   This author is only assuming that his careful avoidance of spraying on his neighbor's land is resulting in actually avoiding spraying on his neighbor's land. He doesn't need to assume that in most cases (usually), being careful to avoid X results in avoiding X. Moreover, our objection to the premise about spraying on his neighbor's land shouldn't be, "Maybe, even though you're trying to avoid spraying on her land, you still actually are!" It should be, "What the heck does spraying on her land have to do with her complaint? She didn't accuse you of spraying pesticides on her land. She said the runoff water from your farm leaks over onto her farm."

   17%
3. C

   Correct69% picked this

   It does not address the neighbor's claim that pesticides used by the farmer are spreading

   Why this is right

   This answer is just pointing out the simple complaint that the author said a bunch of stuff in rebuttal to the original claim that pesticides are spreading via runoff water, but nothing the author said related to that at all. Saying that the pesticides are harmless organic ones, and saying that "I don't deliberately spray onto your land", are not in any way addressing whether or not these pesticides (organic or not) are spreading onto her land via runoff.

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

   69%
4. D

   Never a Valid Objection3% picked this

   It fails to provide an alternative explanation for the presence of pesticides on

   It's never the case that we will criticize someone for "failing to find the real killer". In a criminal trial, if you are innocent, it suffices for you to prove you are innocent by showing it couldn't have been you who committed the crime (you have a rock solid alibi, for example). We don't say, "Sorry, Charlie. Yes, you've convinced us that you were in another country the night of this murder and so you couldn't possibly have strangled Pete, but ... you have failed to solve the crime for us, so you're still guilty." In order to prove, "Bob did not do X", you don't have to establish who did do X. You can just prove that Bob didn't.

   3%
5. E

   Irrelevant Objection3% picked this

   It ignores the possibility that pesticides might have dangerous effects other than harming people

   Since this answer starts with fails to consider / ignores possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would weaken the argument to say, "Hey, author -- pesticides might have dangerous effects other than harming people or domestic animals". It would not, though, since the potential danger of pesticides is completely irrelevant to this argument. We're only supposed to be assessing whether or not pesticides are leaking over onto the neighbor's farm via runoff water. We're not trying to judge whether it's intentional or accidental / whether it's harmful or harmless. Just whether or not it's happening.

   3%