Top Law Schools

Hi guys, having trouble with this Q. Two of the answer choices look perfectly fine to me, even after reading Manhattan forums.

(B) and (E).

So, with this Q after reading it, I was anticipating that the fungicide would indirectly hurt the roses. This actually ended up being partially why I got it wrong, because I looked for an answer like this which made me blow over (E). Anyway, I digress.

(B) here is where my suspicion was after reading the stim. So I thought -- oh it hurts beneficial plants - this must damage the roses indirectly, and therefore, if it was negated would make the argument fall apart. Is the issue with my reasoning really that it is a reach? Seems pretty reasonable of a connection to me to make.

After seeing (E) I can see why it is right - if it DID depend on it being more concentrated , then it would damage the rose.

Can someone help? I get to these type of questions and feel really stuck because these answers seem equally plausible to me.

B is irrelevant because we don't care about the fungicide's effects on those things. In other words, B doesn't have a "horse in the race."

How is it irrelevant though? If there is beneficial insects it kills, it is indirectly hurting the plant

Regardless if you believe the beneficial insects parts to be true, it is not required that the fungicide does not present any risks to animals or humans.

The conclusion states "no risk of harming the plants". Even if the fungicide killed beneficial insects, it's too much of a stretch to say that it would harm the roses. E is a very direct and clear answer.

B can be right if you really stretch the definition "beneficial insects" and "harm", but E doesn't require those mental gymnastics.

Okay - so is it safe to say the lesson to take from this is that if between two answers, take the one that requires absolutlely no extra work on my part in terms of assuming things, etc

i just did LRs of PT-11 and thus this question. B is wrong because B makes assumptions that are not required for the argument to be sound. B states that when the fungicide is suff diluted, it poses no harm to "people, animals,..." The conclusion is only about "harming the plants."

so whether the fungicide harms "people, animals" or not when sufficiently diluted is not required to be true for the conclusion to be correct.

yes, the correct answer to an assumption question should not assume anything that the argument doesn't need to assume for it to hold.