In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers co...
mprezzyApril 26, 2020
...answer choice E
I arrived at the correct answer but I was stuck between C and E. I eliminated E because it did not sound strong enough to tear apart the argument. My thought process was: even if those individuals who did not live in the study area were not included they still worked at the plant, and they are exposed to the hazards, and it could still not result in death (which was the conclusion). Is this the correct reason to eliminate E?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Your reasoning makes sense, as (C) is stronger than (E). Nevertheless, it would be more straightforward to eliminate (E) simply because it is out of scope. The passage clearly states that the study is comparing areas near the nuclear weapons plants to areas without nuclear weapons plants, and the conclusion is consistent in noting this limitation. Therefore, the argument is restricted to specific areas and has no obligation to extend its study to look at the effect on workers who live elsewhere. So, (E) is irrelevant and can be eliminated on the basis of that alone.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any additional questions!
