LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Farmer: My neighbor claims that my pesticides are…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: My neighbor is wrong to say that my pesticides are spreading to her land in runoff water.
REASONING: My pesticides are harmless, and I don’t spray them directly on my neighbor’s land.
ANALYSIS: The farmer completely ignores the neighbor’s argument. The neighbor says the pesticides are coming to her land via runoff water.
The farmer says the pesticides are safe. But the neighbor’s complaint wasn’t about safety. It was about the fact that pesticides were reaching her land.
To prove the neighbor wrong, the farmer would have to show that his pesticides weren’t reaching his neighbor’s land via runoff water.
It is true that the farmer hasn’t proved his claim about the safety of organic pesticides (Answer choice A). But this would only be relevant if the neighbor’s main complaint had been about safety.
___________
- See the explanation above. The neighbor’s claim was that the pesticides had reached her land, not that the pesticides were unsafe.
- The neighbor never said that the farmer directly sprays pesticides on her land. That’s the only thing the farmer was careful to avoid.
- CORRECT. The farmer completely ignores the neighbor’s claim about runoff water.
- The farmer doesn’t have to prove why the pesticides are on his neighbor’s land. He just has to prove that it’s not his fault.
- The evidence about safety is actually irrelevant, because the neighbor’s claim was that the pesticides had travelled to her land. She didn’t say whether the pesticides were unsafe.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Why did the neighbor not have to prove that runoff occurred from the farmer’s land? Isn’t the burden of proof on the plaintiff? Why does the farmer (the defendant) have to prove he’s innocent when the burden of proof should lie on the neighbor (the plaintiff)?
I believe you’re confusing this for a claim of nuisance, which is a legal argument you’ll learn about in law school, but not relevant here. There is no mention of any type of lawsuit here or indication that this is occurring in a legal context (which would invoke burden of proof).
This is just a normal argument and we’re analyzing its merits (which is that the farmer didn’t address the neighbor’s concern at all). Let me know if you have further questions!
Hello, thank you very much for your explanations. They’ve been very helpful.
However, I am confused as to why C is correct.
Although the farmer does not address specifically the runoff, the farmer does mention being careful to avoid spraying directly onto the land, thus denying the possibility of pesticides spreading onto the neighbor’s land.
Shouldn’t it be incorrect to say that the farmer does not at all address the neighbor’s claim of spreading just because the exact method of spreading is different?
There’s a subtle difference between the neighbour’s complaint and the farmer’s claim. The farmer states that he isn’t spraying onto the neighbour’s land, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the pesticides are still spreading to the neighbour via runoff water from the farm.