If the proposed air pollution

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope16% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that other types of pollution not involving ozone might rise, perhaps even producing an

   This answer suggests the flaw is failing to consider that other types of pollution might increase to compensate for ozone reduction. While that is a legitimate real-world concern, it does not identify the actual logical flaw in the argument's reasoning. The argument's error is mathematical, not environmental: it assumes that a one-fifth reduction in ozone levels translates directly to a one-fifth reduction in ozone-related health costs. This proportionality assumption would be flawed even if no other pollutants existed. The relationship between ozone concentration and health outcomes could be exponential, could involve threshold effects, or could follow any number of non-linear patterns. Pointing to other pollutants addresses a secondary, external concern while missing the glaring proportionality assumption at the argument's core.

   16%
2. B

   Correct71% picked this

   presumes, without providing evidence, that ozone-related health costs in the city vary roughly in proportion

   Why this is right

   The argument's structure is: ozone-related health costs total $5 billion; if ozone were one-fifth lower, health costs would decrease by one-fifth, saving $1 billion. This arithmetic only works if health costs scale in direct, linear proportion to ozone concentration levels — an assumption the argument makes without any justification. But dose-response relationships in environmental health are typically non-linear. Threshold effects are common: ozone may be relatively harmless below a certain concentration but severely damaging above it. Alternatively, there may be diminishing marginal effects at lower concentrations or accelerating damage at higher ones. A 20% reduction in ozone could produce anywhere from negligible savings to a dramatic drop in health costs, depending on where on the dose-response curve current levels fall. The argument treats a complex epidemiological relationship as simple division. This answer correctly identifies that unjustified proportionality assumption as the core flaw.

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

   71%
3. C

   Not a Logical Flaw4% picked this

   provides no explicit reason for believing that the proposed air pollution measures will in

   This answer points to a practical concern: perhaps the proposed measures to reduce ozone will never actually be implemented. While that is a legitimate real-world worry about policy feasibility, it is not a logical flaw in the argument's reasoning structure. The argument makes a conditional claim: IF ozone levels were one-fifth lower, THEN health costs would drop by about $1 billion. The logical flaw is in the "then" part — the assumed proportionality between ozone reduction and cost reduction. Whether the "if" part actually happens is a separate question about political or practical feasibility, not about the soundness of the reasoning. Even if the ozone-reducing measures were guaranteed to be adopted, the proportionality assumption would still be unjustified. This answer identifies an implementation obstacle rather than a reasoning error.

   4%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw Category9% picked this

   attempts to support its conclusion by making an appeal

   An appeal to emotions substitutes emotional persuasion for logical reasoning — using fear, sympathy, outrage, or other feelings instead of evidence and analysis. The argument here does the opposite: it relies entirely on numerical data and mathematical calculation. It cites $5 billion in costs, a one-fifth reduction in ozone, and computes $1 billion in savings. This is about as clinical and quantitative as an argument can get. The flaw is not that the argument appeals to feelings but that its quantitative reasoning contains an unjustified mathematical assumption — specifically, that health costs scale proportionally with ozone levels. The argument is too reliant on numbers, not too reliant on emotions; it just gets the numerical relationship wrong.

   9%
5. E

   Not a Red Herring1% picked this

   discusses air pollution in order to draw attention away from more significant sources

   Drawing attention away from a more significant issue (a red herring) involves introducing an irrelevant topic to distract from the real subject under discussion. The argument here stays squarely focused on ozone and health costs throughout. Every element of the argument — ozone levels, health cost figures, the proposed reduction, the projected savings — directly pertains to its central claim. There is no digression, no attempt to change the subject, and no irrelevant tangent introduced to distract from a more important source of pollution. The argument is focused but wrong: it maintains laser precision on the topic while embedding a flawed mathematical assumption in its reasoning. Staying on topic and being right are two different things, and this argument achieves the first while failing at the second.

   1%