#18 - Studies have shown that photosynthesis, the process

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I picked (D) initially but then was able to chose (B) as the correct answer. But I had trouble identifying the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. I was wondering if the stimulus and (B) had the the same flaw, because they assume if C (burning fossil fuels) can benefit/cause D (rising carbon dioxide), then nothing harmful can come from A and A should be promoted.

Could you explain the stimulus and analyze the answer choices for me?

Thank you so much!

[Adam Tyson]

You bet, lilmissunshine! (Btw, I've seen the yellow microbus from that movie up close in person - it's at the Petersen Automotive Museum in L.A.)

I see the flaw in this argument as being a particular type of evidence flaw, one we usually refer to as a "some evidence" flaw. Here, some evidence that CO2 is good is taken as proof that it is purely good. That's what I used to compare my answer choices.

Answer A: the conclusion is that one thing would be better than another, not that one thing is purely good. Loser.

Answer B: Exercise is good, so it must be purely good. Winner!

Answer C: One thing causes a problem, so if you want to avoid that problem do something else. Not at all a match, so Loser.

Answer D: The conclusion here makes a recommendation to do something (one ought to do X) and stop doing another (abandon Y), but our stimulus made no such recommendation. Loser.

Answer E: Excessive use is bad, so a recommendation is to cease all use. Again, our stimulus made no recommendation, plus this one has no element of "good therefore purely good". Loser.

I hope that helps!

[lilmissunshine]

Thanks a lot Adam! That was very helpful.

P.S. I love that movie! I should've checked it out in LA when I was there a couple of weeks ago...