Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct44% picked this

   The chemicals used in the study closely but not perfectly reproduced the

   Why this is right

   This answer is so weak that it could almost never be a real answer on Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. It's saying that the smells in the smell test were close to the real thing, but not perfect. So what? We're not demanding perfection. That would be an unrealistic demand. We wouldn't be able to say, "The real reason the sulfur workers are scoring only 10% accuracy is that the scents are not perfect replicas of their intended source". If the imperfect fakeness were a problem, it would also impact the 100 workers from the control group the same way. Since this answer doesn't identify anything that would be different about the two groups in the experiment, it can't offer an alternate explanation for the observed difference between the two groups.

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

   44%
2. B

   Alternative Explanation22% picked this

   The subjects in the study were tested in the environments where

   This allows us to argue that, "the sulfur workers didn't do worse because their noses have been permanently damaged by sulfur fumes. They did worse because the smell-test was administered in a sulfur factory. Good luck smelling lavender or vanilla in a smell-test when each scent in the test somehow has to drown out the stinky sulfur-filled air. Meanwhile, the 100 people in the control group are probably smelling these smells in the sterile air of an office."

   22%
3. C

   Alternative Explanation9% picked this

   Most members of the control group had participated in several earlier studies that involved the

   This allows us to say, "the control group didn't do better at the test because their noses hadn't been damaged by sulfur fumes; they did better because they already had prior knowledge of the scents involved in the smell test."

   9%
4. D

   Alternative Explanation16% picked this

   Every sulfur-emitting factory with workers participating in the study also emits

   This allows to argue that "the sulfur workers didn't do worse because their sense of smell had been damaged by sulfur. They did worse because their sense of smell had been damaged by one of the other noxious fumes at their factory." Note that with all these alternative explanations, we are not able to say THIS is the REAL story. We're able to create doubt ... "Maybe THIS is the real story?" To undermine a specific attribution of causality (i.e. to acquit your client of the murder he's charged with), you just need to create some doubt, by showing that there does exist a plausible alternative hypothesis.

   16%
5. E

   Alternative Explanation9% picked this

   Because of the factories' locations, the factory workers were less likely than those in the control group to have been exposed to many of

   This allows us to argue, "the sulfur workers didn't do worse because their noses had been permanently damaged by sulfur fumes. They did worse because they live in an area that doesn't have lilacs, and lavender, and sandalwood, and whatever other regionally-biased scents may have been in this test." If one of the scents is a California poppy, and you live in Vermont and have never smelled a California poppy, then you're at a disadvantage when it comes to identifying that scent.

   9%