- Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:24 pm
Thanks for the question! I'll respond with how LSAC would see this: they won't agree that this is a distortion. The first sentence references "formula made from cow's milk" and then the second references "cow's milk formula," and so it's clear that cow's milk is a primary component of this formula. To then continue on to discuss the benefits of cow's milk itself when it's clearly in the formula is not too much of a stretch in their eyes (or mine, for what it is worth). You can continue on to discuss components in this matter without committing flawed reasoning.
Let's consider the argument for a moment. First, it's a commonsense fact in LSAC's view that mother's nurse children with breast milk. So that's a "known" option as a basic fact of life. so here comes Melchior saying this cow's milk formula has been linked to diabetes. But regardless of that fact, it's okay to use it because it has some great nutrients. but shouldn't we consider the alternative and compare the two? Perhaps mother's milk has all the same nutrients and none of the drawbacks. And that's where Melchior's argument makes an error; it focuses on one option despite the drawbacks without looking elsewhere at all.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!