PT153 S3 Q3 ExplanationColumnist: Although it is our civic duty to protect

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   Public health would be damaged by the loss of

   We know what we're looking for, having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health Anything that isn't that is irrelevant to us. It won't solve our missing math. In particular, since "high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas" is a New Concept in the Conclusion, we know that any answer lacking that language is useless for completing our logic circuit.

   3%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Proponents of expensive safety measures with respect to high-tension power lines

   We know what we're looking for, having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health Anything that isn't that is irrelevant to us. It won't solve our missing math. In particular, since "high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas" is a New Concept in the Conclusion, we know that any answer lacking that language is useless for completing our logic circuit.

   2%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Scientific evidence exists for causal links between various modern practices and threats

   We don't have to bother thinking about wrong answers on Sufficient Assumption. We're supposed to know what we're looking for: having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health Anything that isn't that is irrelevant to us. It won't solve our missing math. This answer again fails to mention the New Concept in the Conclusion (high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas).

   2%
4. D

   Correct91% picked this

   No investigation of the effects of high-tension power lines has established any health

   Why this is right

   We were looking for this. having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health This answer is saying all the investigations done so far of high-tension power lines have not established any health threat. If all the studies so far have established no health threat to people, then it's safe to say "there is no well-substantiated threat to public health". This style of correct answer is more common on modern tests. It doesn't allow us to over-mechanistically solve for a missing link. We need to be clear on the idea we need, but flexible with how we get there. This answer implies the idea we need, rather than stating it directly.

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

   91%
5. E

   Too Weak2% picked this

   Rerouting high-tension power lines away from heavily populated areas would hinder our ability to study the effects of

   We can't quickly dismiss this one because it does have a lot of the keywords we're looking for. But we needed to know that "high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health". This is saying, "if we move the power lines, it will be harder to study the effects of power lines on people". We might think, "Jeez, if we're still studying the effects of power lines on people, then I guess it isn't yet a well-substantiated threat to public health". But that's not a fair implication. Secondhand tobacco smoke is a well-substantiated threat to public health / covid is a well-substantiated threat to public health. But we still might continue to study the specific effects.

   2%