In 2005, an environmental group

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   takes an inconsistent stance regarding the status of the inferences that can be drawn

   Why this is right

   The word "inconsistent" basically means "contradictory". To be logically inconsistent is to believe both "A" and "not A". In the context of Flaw questions, we know that one of the 10 Famous Flaws is Self-Contradiction, and the most common language used in a Self-Contradiction answer choice is "inconsistent / incompatible". We also know that this answer is almost always wrong. Almost always. We still need to be flexible and ask ourselves questions. Does the author take an inconsistent stance regarding what inferences can be drawn from the study? Does the author take any stance? Let's research. Yes, the author says in the 2nd sentence that "Scientifically valid inferences could not be draw from the study (because it's only 11 people)", but then the author goes on and draws an inference from the study. Is the author drawing what she thinks is a 'scientifically valid inference'? Yes, that's implied by the fact that she says "This proves that". This answer is thus descriptively true, and it brings up an issue worthy of criticism. "Yo, author -- why are you drawing some big, broad inference about the effects of regulation banning PCBs from this puny sample of 11 people, which you yourself acknowledge is not enough data to make such an inference?" Wow. A genuine Self-Contradiction example. It's like seeing a bald eagle in the wild.

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

   72%
2. B

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that two or more chemicals produce the

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we object to the author by saying, "You know ... it's possible that two or more chemicals produce the same effects"? No, that doesn't go against anything the author was thinking. Was she assuming that only one chemical can produce a certain effect? Not at all. We're talking about PCBs, which are toxic chemicals (plural). And we never hear about any of their effects.

   2%
3. C

   Not Unproven vs. Proven False8% picked this

   concludes that a generalization has been proven true merely on the grounds that it has

   This answer describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. Does the author conclude that a generalization has been proven true? Sure, we could make that work, since saying "banning PCBs was effective in reducing human exposure to those chemicals" is somewhat of a general statement. And the author definitely thinks that this claim has been proven true. Is the premise the idea that "it's never been proven false that banning PCBs reduced human exposure"? No, the premise was the blood measurements of 11 volunteers.

   8%
4. D

   Not a Coherent Objection10% picked this

   takes something to be the cause of a reduction when it could have been an

   This is attractive if we were looking for an answer complaining about the overly confident causal conclusion. But this doesn't end up making a plausible objection. The author takes the "ban of PCBs" to be the cause of a reduction "in human exposure to those chemicals". Can we object by saying, "Actually, author, the ban on PCB's might have been the result of a reduction in human exposure to those chemicals"? No, that's crazy talk. How would reduced exposure to PCBs cause a ban on PCBs?

   10%
5. E

   Not an Objection7% picked this

   does not consider the possibility that PCBs have detrimental effects on human health several

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we object to the author by saying, "You know ... it's possible that PCBs have detrimental effects for several years after exposure"? Not really. The author wasn't assuming that detrimental effects go away shortly after exposure stops. After all, PCBs were banned in the 1970s, but 30 years later in 2005, the younger subjects showed lower levels of PCBs, not no levels of PCBs. So the author definitely accepts that PCBs can stay in your system for years after exposure. The argument doesn't get into specifics about any detrimental effects.

   7%