In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers compared death rates in the areas near the plants with death rates in areas that had no such plants.
Conclusion (concluded that)
Radiation from the nuclear weapons plants poses no health hazards to people living near them.
Evidence
The researchers compared death rates in areas near nuclear weapons plants with death rates in areas without such plants.
They found no difference in these rates.
Evaluate
This is an Anti-Causal argument. These normally present evidence with Symmetric Comparisons (there was no difference in death rates) and thus conclude that a factor present in one case but not in the other is a meaningless one.
GIVEN THAT areas w/o nuclear weapons plants have similar death rates to those who with such plants,
HOW CAN WE ARGUE THAT radiation from these plants does pose a health hazards to the people living nearby?
We could exploit the difference between "deaths" and "health hazards". Maybe radiation makes you sick more often, even if it doesn't kill you.
It could also be that the areas that don't have nuclear plants have something else that causes excess deaths in their areas, and that's why areas with nuclear are comparable to areas without nuclear.
Goal
Let's find an answer that gives us way to argue that there could be health hazards from radiation exposure.