Top Law Schools

PT 62, LR1, Q5

“Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning…”

I see how C is right but couldn’t B be right as well? Isn’t the argument assuming that those 25% of homes are the ONLY source of lead (rather than A source of lead) in the area and therefore, once this lead is gone, lead poisoning will be eliminated?

Thanks!

The flaw described in B is circular reasoning. Saying that because A, then A. There are tons of questions that have this type of answer, so it's good to recognize it because it's usually wrong.

For the argument to have circular reasoning, the premise would have to EQUAL the conclusion (i.e. something like, "If we get rid of poisoning (A)---> we will eliminate poisoning (A)").
It seems as though the argument does that, but since you have to make the connection between eliminating paint and eliminating poisoning, they are different ( If eliminate paint (A)--->eliminate poisoning (B)).

Hope that makes sense!