Q4 - Industrialist: Environmentalists content that

[tzyc]

Hi,

I chose E because I thought "health risk" in the first sentence and "dangerous" in the 3rd sentence may not match (may not have the exact same meanings)...
Can someone plz explain why C is correct?
Is it because scientist could say the emission is not safe too, so it's flawed?

Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

The equivocation flaw is not occurring here. Lets first get to the core of this argument.

We are told that a factory's emissions may be a health risk. Then we are told that the testimony provided in support of that contention was given by people not sufficiently qualified to make a judgement on whether the risk is a health risk or not.

The arguer then concludes that the factory's emissions are safe?

The arguer makes a fair point that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the emissions are a health risk. But that is not enough to conclude that we actually do not have a health risk occurring.

Say you have a tooth that is hurting. You uncle Bob looks at it and says you have a cavity. But uncle Bob is not a qualified dentist.

Therefore, nothing is wrong with your tooth.

Chew on that for a minute!

[nflamel69]

Timmy! I haven't seen you posting after that June's test, Glad you are back with your insightful posts! Back to the question, can the flaw also be the absence of evidence as evidence of absence?

[timmydoeslsat]

Thanks for the comments! Yes, this is a situation of there being an absence of evidence of something and concluding that the something does not exist.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The industrialist concludes that the factory’s emissions present no health risk. Why? The industrialist supports this contention on the basis that only a trained scientist can determine whether or not these emissions are dangerous. None of the residents of the communities are scientists and the only testimony that supports the contention that the factory’s emissions are not safe come from these residents. This is a classic case of taking the failure to prove a claim as implying that the claim is false.

Correct Answer
The argument states that only scientists can show that the factory’s emissions are safe. How then can it conclude that the emissions are safe without offering testimony of scientists? This flaw (gap in the reasoning) is pointed out in answer choice (C).

Incorrect Answers
(A) describes an ad hominem attack. However, the industrialist does not criticize the motives of the environmentalists. Attacking the environmentalists claim is different than attacking their motives.
(B) is out of scope. The industrialist’s conclusion is not about all emissions in the area, just the emissions from the factory.
(D) is out of scope. Benefits of the factory are not relevant to the emissions of the factory.
(E) describes an equivocation error. However, the term "health risk" is not used with two different meanings.

[disguise_sky]

I have a question about this one. If (C) says "presents no evidence that the emission is safe" instead of "presents no testimony from scientists that the emission is safe", is (C) still correct?
I mean, is it because the industrialist himself sets up the requirement of scientist testimony (earlier in the stimulus he says "but only a traind scienist can determine...") that he has to meet this requirement in his argument of the safety of the emission?
Can anyone help me with it? Thanks a lot!

[graftedinspiration]

I mean, is it because the industrialist himself sets up the requirement of scientist testimony (earlier in the stimulus he says "but only a traind scienist can determine...") that he has to meet this requirement in his argument of the safety of the emission?

I think you hit the nail on the head, sky