Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral once installed as building insulation, poses no health risk unless the asb...

SamA on October 2, 2019

@Ryan-Mahabir,

Premise: Asbestos is harmless unless it is disturbed, which causes asbestos fibers to be released into the environment.

Premise: Removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it.

Conclusion: The government should not require the removal of all asbestos insulation.

We need to strengthen the conclusion. Before I look at the answer choices, I'm thinking that the answer will demonstrate how asbestos removal will cause more harm than good.

E is the answer I'm looking for. The asbestos would have to be removed, which releases harmful fibers, and then there is no certainty that it won't be disturbed again after being disposed of. There is a possibility of two or more disturbances, when simply leaving the asbestos alone might not lead to any disturbances. The asbestos is harmless when undisturbed, why would the government require that it be disturbed at least once?

B does not strengthen the argument nearly as much, because it comes with a very simple solution. Workers involved would just have to wear protective gear. This is not a good enough reason to object to asbestos removal.

Ashley-Tien-2 on June 21, 2021

I have two separate questions. Is the argument presented in the stimulus a good or bad argument? Could someone explain why D is incorrect?

Emil-Kunkin on June 23 at 07:06PM

The argument is flawed, and as a rule of thumb, you can be sure that all strengthen, weak, error, or sufficient/necessary assumptions are flawed. Here, there is a major flaw, the government should mandate removal of some other forces are in fact disturbing the asbestos. D is incorrect since it really doesnt give any reason not to remove it. We know asbestos are dangerous, but D just tells us that they can be dangerous without following proper procedure. However, workers should just follow proper procedure when removing them.