Critical Reasoning

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin contained in industrial waste and previously considered harmless is in fact very dangerous. Jones has examined several areas with high concentration of chlorocetin and found that certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species. The professor says that although he failed to establish an exact mechanism by which chlorocetin hampers photosynthesis, his findings are sufficient to state that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world. This conclusion, however, is unwarranted because all that professor Jones actually established is a mere correlation between the level of chlorocetin and the speed of photosynthesis - correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors.

The highlighted portions of the text perform which of the following functions in the argument?

A: the first is the position the author disagrees with while the second is the author's own position

B: the first contains the argument the author critiques while the second identifies a logical flaw in this argument

C: the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes while the second is a statement supporting the author's own position

D: the first describes a phenomenon which weighs against the author's opinion while the second reasons in favour of this opinion

E: the first contains information that, if true, could overthrow the author's argument while the second discredits this information


[spoiler]OA is C. Why D is wrong? I think it means the same as C does.[/spoiler]

D.

E is out right at first because the first highlighted portion contains no information that would discredit the second one.

Now according to each option, the first highlighted portion:
A. is a position
B. is an argument
C. provides evidence
D. describes a phenomenon

The first highlighted portion merely reports what Prof. Jones found happens. It doesn't present a position, argument, or any sort of evidence. Therefore, D.

kvitkod wrote:Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin contained in industrial waste and previously considered harmless is in fact very dangerous. Jones has examined several areas with high concentration of chlorocetin and found that certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species. The professor says that although he failed to establish an exact mechanism by which chlorocetin hampers photosynthesis, his findings are sufficient to state that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world. This conclusion, however, is unwarranted because all that professor Jones actually established is a mere correlation between the level of chlorocetin and the speed of photosynthesis - correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors.

The highlighted portions of the text perform which of the following functions in the argument?

A: the first is the position the author disagrees with while the second is the author's own position

B: the first contains the argument the author critiques while the second identifies a logical flaw in this argument

C: the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes while the second is a statement supporting the author's own position

D: the first describes a phenomenon which weighs against the author's opinion while the second reasons in favour of this opinion

E: the first contains information that, if true, could overthrow the author's argument while the second discredits this information


[spoiler]OA is C. Why D is wrong? I think it means the same as C does.[/spoiler]

I'll try to break down the entire argument in a structural manner
What professor Jones claim
He examined the site to prove his claim
...
...
Now author, gives reason why not support Prof. Claim
Now, see bold phase in context above structure of the argument.
Bold Statement #1 is an evidence(Jones has examined several areas with high concentration of chlorocetin and found that .... )
Bold Statement #2 reason to support author's position (This conclusion, however, is unwarranted because...)
Hence C

IMO C