Kyle on May 29, 2016
I identified the correct answer because it matches the reasoning in the stimulus, but I'm having trouble identifying just what the flaw is in the argument. From where I sit, I see the following:
P1: "have not proved that the forest fire was started by campers."
P2: "Nor have they proved that lightning triggered the fire."
C: "Investigators have not proved that the blaze was caused by campers or lightning"
This seems to me like a valid argument. It's not saying that it's impossible that either (or both) group did start the fire. It is not even saying that investigators never will prove that one or the other (or both) started the fire. It is simply saying that, at this present point in time, neither has been proven to have started the fire...which seems to me to be completely supported by the premises.
Please assist, thanks.