Critical Reasoning: "Complete the Argument" Format
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
In a recent article, a health expert has claimed that the toxins used by fumigators remain in a house or office for long periods of time, and not only kill pests, but also damage the health of human inhabitants. For example, Chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in fumigation pesticides, leads to acute lung damage. The article has met with much opposition including claims that almost all wall paints continually release nanoparticles that are known to be equally harmful to the lungs. These objections to the article should not be taken into account since __________.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. The fact that the two substances are different does not automatically mean that their effects are substantially different and therefore does nothing to refute the objectors' claim.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]While this answer choice may appear to strengthen the conclusion, it is actually irrelevant, and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. Although companies with financial interests in fumigation may have ulterior motives, and in some cases may be less objective, their objection to the article's claim may still be 100% accurate.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice weakens the conclusion and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. If paints are not always tested for toxin levels, then we are led to believe that a lot of them are really poisonous, as claimed by the objectors. Therefore, this statement strengthens those defending fumigation.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice weakens the conclusion and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. The fact that the paint is more likely to cause damage only gives us the impression that what the objectors to the article are saying is true.
Bravo!
[[snippet]]This answer choice strengthens the conclusion and therefore logically completes the argument. The fact that wall paint is also harmful doesn't take away the harm caused by the fumigation, it only makes the overall level of harm worse. Therefore, the claim that wall paint is harmful has no effect on the harm caused by fumigation and can be ignored.
