I didn't get this wrong, but I'm having a hard time discerning why (c) is incorrect.
Can anyone help me out on this?
PT 37, Section 2, Question 21 Forum
-
yoni45
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am
Re: PT 37, Section 2, Question 21
Well, essentially, what you're looking at in the original argument is somewhat of a form of the Part/Whole fallacy.
The argument establishes that a particular study showing fruits and vegetables can reduce cancer risk uses produce some of which is organic, and some of which has pesticide residue.
On the basis of this, it assumes that the entire group is equal in terms of health risk.
There's actually two issues here -- just because the study didn't distinguish between the two subtypes, doesn't mean that both subtypes are equal to each other in any respect. Furthermore, the original study was only regarding certain types of cancer, not over "health risk" overall.
Answer choice (C) never takes results about a certain group on the basis of which it then assumes that all subtypes within that group are equal to each other.
If, for example, the argument went to note something like: "Since the study included both motorcyclists who wear helmets, and ones who don't, thus we can conclude that wearing helmets is no less dangerous than not doing so", then it would be closer to the original flaw.
Remember, when doing parallel flaw questions, you're looking to parallel the specific *flaw* of the argument -- not necessarily the structure of the entire argument.
Hope this helped; let me know otherwise... ^_^
The argument establishes that a particular study showing fruits and vegetables can reduce cancer risk uses produce some of which is organic, and some of which has pesticide residue.
On the basis of this, it assumes that the entire group is equal in terms of health risk.
There's actually two issues here -- just because the study didn't distinguish between the two subtypes, doesn't mean that both subtypes are equal to each other in any respect. Furthermore, the original study was only regarding certain types of cancer, not over "health risk" overall.
Answer choice (C) never takes results about a certain group on the basis of which it then assumes that all subtypes within that group are equal to each other.
If, for example, the argument went to note something like: "Since the study included both motorcyclists who wear helmets, and ones who don't, thus we can conclude that wearing helmets is no less dangerous than not doing so", then it would be closer to the original flaw.
Remember, when doing parallel flaw questions, you're looking to parallel the specific *flaw* of the argument -- not necessarily the structure of the entire argument.
Hope this helped; let me know otherwise... ^_^
-
CMDantes
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:37 pm
Re: PT 37, Section 2, Question 21
Yes, that definitely helped.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
