There are known cases of children developing strong opposition to drinking water. Liquids are vital for the body so some parents solve the problem by adding artificial flavoring to the water they give their children to drink. The artificial flavoring has a high sugar content and contains many chemical additives. Since the only other option is dehydration, sometimes even resulting in death, parents should use the artificial flavoring to prevent this from happening.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the argument's conclusion?
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. The reasons why some children refuse to drink water are irrelevant, as the arugment deals mainly with how to handle such situations.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion because additional causes of dehydration are irrelevant - the argument revolves solely around children's refusal to drink water.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice strengthens the conclusion that parents should use the artificial flavoring. The fact that part of the artificial flavouring is natural means that it can't be that bad for kids. However, we're supposed to be proving the opposite: that children who do not like water should not be given water with artificial flavoring.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. While the tip provided here can help lower the chances of dehydration, we still have a problem with premise B, which states that liquids are vital (necessary) for the body. Reducing perspiration is nice, but it won't be enough to save children who don't drink, so the conclusion holds - parents should use artificial flavors.
Right on!
[[snippet]]This answer choice weakens the conclusion by providing an example of two other solutions to the problem besides dehydration and artificial flavors. This seriously undermines the data upon which the conclusion is based.