PT145 · S2 · Q14 Activist: Medical conditions such as

Whenever a flaw answer choice begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "Does this sound like an objection to the argument"? In this case, no. Saying that "pollutants can also harm nonhuman species" isn't objecting to either conclusion. If anything, it's underscoring the author's idea that we should halt industries that produce these pollutants.

Whenever a flaw answer choice begins takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish we can ask ourselves, "Did the author need to assume this?" Does the author need to assume that "certain effects can be produced independently by several different causes"? What certain effects are we talking about? Cancer and birth defects? Was the author thinking that there are several independent causes of cancer and birth defects? No, she was only thinking about one specific cause --- pollutants in water. If anything, the idea that "certain effects (cancer and birth defects) can be produced independently by several difference causes" sounds more like the Objection we pointed out in (A). By showing that cancer and birth defects come from more than one place, you weaken the author's conclusion that "the only effective way to reduce cancer and birth defects is to stop pollutants".

We can again ask ourselves, "would this be an objection to the argument?" To a certain extent, ye — "Hey, author, just because industries are unlikely to comply with strict regulations doesn't mean we have to halt these industries. After all, they may voluntarily decrease their output of pollutants." Some may say, did the author really fail to consider this? If the author is saying that industries wouldn't even be likely to sufficiently comply with strict environmental regulations (were we to make laws against pollutants), then hasn't she implicitly considered and rejected the idea that industries would do this voluntarily? It violates common sense (or is too exotic of a possibility) to argue that, "I won't comply with your law, but I will consider doing it voluntarily". These are industries, not 6 year old kids who will only make their bed if their parents aren't nagging them to do it. Or, we could say, the author did fail to consider this, and then just compare the objection we get from this answer to the one we get from (A). (A)'s is stronger because if there are other significant sources of cancer / birth defects that are preventable, then halting industry isn't the only way to significantly reduce their incidence. (D) is just saying, "Maybe the industries will just volunteer to do it?" It's less compelling and weaker impact as an objection.

Would it be an objection to the argument if we said, "Yo author — what if these pollutants have some beneficial effects we just haven't discovered yet?" No, first of all, that is another real longshot of an objection. But it also doesn't even address the author's concern. Whatever benefits these pollutants may have, they are nonetheless linked to these cancers and birth defects, so the author can still cogently argue that stopping these pollutants would lower the incidence of cancer / birth defects. If it also deprives us of the potential benefits of these pollutants, so be it. The author has only claimed that it will reduce the incidence of cancer and birth defects, not that it would have no negative tradeoffs.