QUESTION TEXT: If the proposed air pollution measures were…
QUESTION TYPE: Flaw
CONCLUSION: If we adopt the proposed measure we will save a billion dollars in health costs.
REASONING: The proposed measures would lower ozone levels by a fifth. We currently spend $5 billion on ozone-related health costs.
ANALYSIS: This argument is assuming that somehow, the amount of money spent on the health costs is proportionate to the ozone levels. Is this necessarily true? No! What if there are long-term health problems that require long-term investments? Then the amount of money most likely won’t decrease. Even if it does decrease, it’s highly unlikely that there would be perfect correlation between the ozone levels and health costs. Few things in life are exactly linear.
___________
- This answer isn’t even a flaw: the conclusion was only about ozone. We don’t care about other types of pollution and the health costs they create. We’re only concerned with ozone levels and ozone-related health costs.
- CORRECT. This argument is assuming that somehow there’s a proportional relationship between ozone levels and health cost. Few things in life are exactly linear.
- It doesn’t matter whether the measures will be adopted. The stimulus is talking about a hypothetical situation, due to the “if”.
- We’re not applying to emotions. People often get emotional about pollution but that didn’t happen in this argument.
Example of flaw: Ozone makes me sad. We need to eliminate all of it or I’ll cry. - This isn’t a flaw. The conclusion is only about pollution, a pollutant in the air. When you are discussing airborne pollutants, it is logical only to discuss air pollution. We’re not concerned about health costs from sources other than ozone.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply