Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the U.S. practice of making certain pesticides that are banned for use in the U.S. and sending those pesticides to other countries greatly increases the health risk to people in the U.S. This is because those kinds of pesticides are often used on products that are imported into the U.S.
Notable Assumptions
The argument assumes that the stuff that is sprayed onto the products that are imported into the U.S. originally was made in the U.S. (This overlooks the possibility that even though the U.S. makes and exports certain pesticides, the U.S. made stuff isn’t used on the imported products. The stuff used on the imported products could be the same kind of pesticides, but made in other countries.)
A
Trace amounts of some of the pesticides banned for use in the United States can be detected in the soil where they were used 30 years ago.
The fact the pesticide is already in soil doesn’t impact whether the U.S. practice of making the pesticides and sending them to other countries hurts the U.S. We still have reason to think the U.S. practice of making/exporting the pesticide hurts people in the U.S.
B
Most of the pesticides that are manufactured in the United States and exported are not among those banned for use in the United States.
We still know that the banned pesticides are among the ones the U.S. makes and exports. There may be other pesticides that are not banned; the argument isn’t concerned with those.
C
The United States is not the only country that manufactures and exports the pesticides that are banned for use in the United States.
This raises the possibility that the pesticides used on the imported products are coming from another country, not the U.S. Multiple countries may be making the same kinds of banned pesticides. So, we cannot assume that stuff sprayed on the products had a U.S. origin.
D
The banned pesticides pose a greater risk to people in the countries in which they are used than to U.S. consumers.
Even if they pose a greater risk to people in other countries, that doesn’t suggest that might not also increase the health risk to people in the U.S.
E
There are many pesticides that are banned for use in other countries that are not banned for use in the United States.
The argument concerns the pesticides banned for use in the U.S. Whether those pesticides are banned in other countries has no bearing on the level of danger posed by those pesticides.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that listening to music can trigger a state of profound creativity. This is because listening to music increases theta brainwaves. And increased theta brainwaves are found when someone is in a state of profound creativity.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The columnist observes that increased theta brainwaves are correlated with states of profound creativity. He then implicitly concludes that theta brainwaves cause a state of profound creativity. (And therefore music, by increasing theta brainwaves, can causally trigger that state.)
But this overlooks the possibility that it’s the other way around: maybe being in a state of creativity is what leads to higher theta brainwaves. Or maybe a third factor—say, waking up early in the morning—both triggers a state of profound creativity and increases theta brainwaves. If either of these were true, listening to music could increase theta brainwaves without triggering a state of profound creativity.
But this overlooks the possibility that it’s the other way around: maybe being in a state of creativity is what leads to higher theta brainwaves. Or maybe a third factor—say, waking up early in the morning—both triggers a state of profound creativity and increases theta brainwaves. If either of these were true, listening to music could increase theta brainwaves without triggering a state of profound creativity.
A
takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
The proposed causal connection is about theta brainwaves, not any particular part of the brain. The theta brainwaves occur in “many regions of the brain” aside from the hippocampus.
B
fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
The columnist doesn’t assume this, so it can’t be the flaw. The columnist is saying that music is sufficient (if you have it, you’ll get a profound creative state), not that it’s necessary (you can’t have the state without music).
C
does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
Even if this were true, it wouldn’t be a flaw in the argument. It’s perfectly possible for the columnist to also believe that listening to music in different formats also increases theta waves.
D
ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
The author assumes that the correlation between theta waves and states of profound creativity means that theta waves cause states of profound creativity. But
E
provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
The columnist's conclusion only concerns people who are in states of profound creativity. Also, the columnist's language is relative—increased brainwaves accompany states of profound creativity. So the alternative could be moderate, rather than low, levels of brainwaves.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the presence of police in a neighborhood doesn’t deter crime. His support is that the areas with the most police presence also have the most crime.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author observes that high crime is correlated with high policing, and concludes that policing doesn’t reduce crime. This is flawed reasoning, because it’s quite possible that more police are assigned to areas that are already high in crime. Without the extra policing, perhaps these areas would have even higher crime rates.
A
attempts to support its conclusion by making an appeal to emotions
The author doesn’t make an emotional appeal; he cites evidence for his case.
B
fails to consider the possibility that criminals may commit crimes in more than one neighborhood
Even if true, this wouldn’t have a clear impact on the relationship between how heavily a neighborhood is policed and its crime rate. So this can’t be the flaw.
C
draws a general conclusion from too small a sample of data
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of relying on an unrepresentative sample. We have no indication that the author’s sample size is insufficient, so it’s not applicable here.
D
fails to consider the possibility that police presence in a particular area is often a response to the relatively high crime rate in that area
If this were true, it would explain why high crime areas tend to have high police presence. This indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning, because these areas might have even higher crime without high police presence.
E
takes for granted that public resources devoted to police presence could be allocated in another manner that would be a stronger deterrent to crime
The author never suggests that he has an opinion about other ways resources could be allocated, so this can’t be the flaw.