Loading...
The fabric dye Alidin was recently reformulated to eliminate certain solvents known to cause damage to the ozone layer. When a factory in Bouvierville started to use the reformulated version of Alidin, several workers contracted serious lung ailments. The manufacturer of Alidin denied that the reformulated product could be the cause of the ailments since numerous other factories had also started to use it, and none of their workers had suffered any ill effects.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the dye manufacturer's argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| The fabric dye Alidin was recently reformulated to eliminate certain solvents known to cause damage to the ozone layer. |
|
| When a factory in Bouvierville started to use the reformulated version of Alidin, several workers contracted serious lung ailments. |
|
| The manufacturer of Alidin denied that the reformulated product could be the cause of the ailments since numerous other factories had also started to use it, and none of their workers had suffered any ill effects. |
|
The passage starts with background about Alidin being reformulated, then presents a potential problem (workers getting sick), and finally gives us the manufacturer's response defending their product.
The manufacturer claims that the reformulated Alidin cannot be causing the lung ailments in Bouvierville workers.
The manufacturer uses a comparison argument - since many other factories use the same reformulated Alidin without workers getting sick, they conclude it can't be the cause of the Bouvierville workers' illnesses. This is essentially arguing that if A causes B, then A should cause B everywhere it's present.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the manufacturer's conclusion that the reformulated Alidin couldn't be causing the lung ailments
The manufacturer's argument relies on a comparison between factories - claiming that since OTHER factories using reformulated Alidin have NO sick workers, while Bouvierville factory has SEVERAL sick workers, the reformulated Alidin can't be the cause
To weaken this argument, we need to show why the comparison between Bouvierville and other factories might not be valid. We should look for relevant differences between Bouvierville and the other factories that could explain why only Bouvierville workers got sick from the same reformulated product. This would undermine the manufacturer's logic that 'same product + different health outcomes = product isn't the cause'
This tells us other dyeing products became available when Alidin was reformulated. However, this doesn't weaken the manufacturer's argument about their specific product. The manufacturer is defending reformulated Alidin by comparing factories that use it - the availability of other products is irrelevant to whether reformulated Alidin caused the Bouvierville illnesses. This doesn't address the core comparison in the manufacturer's argument.
This gives us historical information about the manufacturer's past reluctance to reformulate. While this might make us think poorly of the manufacturer, it doesn't weaken their current argument about whether the reformulated version causes lung problems. Past environmental concerns don't tell us anything about current health effects or invalidate the factory-to-factory comparison. This is irrelevant to the logical structure of their defense.
This actually strengthens the manufacturer's argument rather than weakening it. If workers who don't even use Alidin are getting sick, this suggests something else in the Bouvierville factory environment is causing the lung ailments, not the reformulated Alidin. This supports the manufacturer's claim that their product isn't the cause.
This is the correct answer. It reveals a crucial difference between Bouvierville and the other factories - the method of application. While other factories apply Alidin by brush, Bouvierville sprays it. Spraying creates airborne particles that workers can inhale into their lungs, while brush application doesn't. This explains why only Bouvierville workers got lung ailments even though all factories use the same reformulated product. This difference makes the manufacturer's comparison invalid and significantly weakens their argument.
This tells us the eliminated solvents weren't suspected of causing respiratory problems. But this doesn't weaken the manufacturer's argument - in fact, it might slightly support it by suggesting the reformulation removed environmentally harmful but not respiratory-harmful substances. This doesn't address why Bouvierville workers got sick while others didn't, which is the heart of the manufacturer's defense.