Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is be...
cannedfunMarch 30, 2023
Was stuck between A and B and went with B.
Reading the answer explanation it is as clear as day that the baseline rate wasn't established even if they both proportionally increase cavity rate with time in contact with teeth.
My thought process was that if something dissolves, that doesn't preclude it from being in contact with teeth.
Am I overreaching? Is that a bad habit? Any general tips for avoiding getting baited by an equivocation answer choice that is incorrect?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi, when I read this argument I actually had a similar thought. The author seems the be treating the idea of dissolving as being equal to not being in contact with teeth, and they seem to treat the idea of food being in the mouth as equal to food being in contact with teeth, both of which feel like questionable reasoning to me. Surely a dissolved liquid can still be in contact with teeth! This is indeed a flaw of the argument.
However, I think there's another flaw, which as you noted is the baseline rate. Caramel is basically pure sugar, which causes more cavities than the wheat that makes up a pretzel.
An argument can have more than one flaw to it, and I think it is helpful to recognize that once you've located a flaw there may still be other issues with that argument.
Additionally, A is really tough to understand. I think it would take a few steps to directly connect A to the idea that caramel and pretzels may have other differences that matter (sugar content) than rate of dissolving.
To be clear I don't think you're overreaching at all, and poking as many holes as possible in an argument is far from a bad habit.
