Q6 - If the proposed air pollution measures

[Misti Duvall]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Proposed air pollution measures, if implemented, would decrease city ozone levels by one fifth. Ozone pollution causes $5 billion in heath costs. So reducing ozone levels by one fifth would also reduce health costs by one fifth.

Answer Anticipation:
With Flaw questions, I like to start by asking myself what I think is wrong with the argument. Here it looks like the argument is assuming that pollution and health costs are pretty proportional, i.e., if you reduce pollution by x amount, you'll reduce health costs by the same amount. But there's no support for that in the stimulus; it just says that current ozone levels cause $5 billion in health costs.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) The argument does fail to consider this possibility, but it doesn't matter. It might if the conclusion were broader (for ex., health costs related to all pollution), but since it's just about health costs from ozone, we don't care about other pollutants.

(B) This is close to what I predicted and it's the correct answer. The wording is a little abstract, though, so totally fair to hold it and come back after you're done working wrong to right.

(C) I don't see an explicit reason for believing the ozone measures will be adopted, but it doesn't matter because the argument is conditioned on their adoption. For ex., "If I sleep late, I will be cranky." No need to prove I will actually sleep late, since we're just saying "if" I do so, I'll be cranky.

(D) There's no appeal to emotions in the argument. Eliminate.

(E) There's no discussion of other sources of health related costs, so no attempt by the argument to shift focus. Eliminate.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Take a second to note, in your own words, what you think is wrong with an argument before you work through the answers. If it's a classic flaw, great, but if not you'll still have a starting point with your own analysis.

#officialexplanation