Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardAppeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

Public Health Official: We should adopt the proposed dietary guidelines limiting the intake of synthetic preservatives. Dr. Aris Thorne, a globally recognized epidemiologist who has extensively studied the spread of viral pathogens in urban populations, has argued that synthetic preservatives in our food supply compromise the immune system. When a researcher of Dr. Thorne's caliber issues a warning about public health, it is imperative that policymakers heed that advice and update our nutritional standards.

The public health official's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. A
    infers from a correlation between synthetic preservatives and immune system compromise that the former inherently causes the latter
  2. B
    relies on an ambiguous use of the concept of public health, using it to refer to both infectious diseases and dietary habits
  3. appeals to the judgment of an expert whose specialized field of study is not directly relevant to the specific claim being advancedAnswer
  4. D
    dismisses the potential benefits of synthetic preservatives without considering their vital role in preventing foodborne illnesses
  5. E
    treats information provided merely to establish a researcher's general credentials as a premise that directly proves the dietary claim

Answer

The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument appeals to the judgment of an expert whose specialized field of study is not directly relevant to the specific claim being advanced.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the public health official bases the entire conclusion on the opinion of Dr. Thorne. However, Dr. Thorne's expertise is in viral pathogens, whereas the conclusion is about the dietary impact of synthetic food preservatives. This is a classic illegitimate appeal to authority, as the expert's highly specialized field is irrelevant to the specific claim being made.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that policymakers should adopt dietary guidelines limiting the intake of synthetic preservatives.
Locating the main conclusion is the necessary first step in evaluating the logical structure of any argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
The sole supporting premise is that Dr. Thorne, a renowned epidemiologist specializing in viral pathogens, warns that these preservatives compromise the immune system.
Understanding the supporting evidence reveals exactly how the author attempts to justify their conclusion.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premises and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
The argument relies completely on Dr. Thorne's expertise. However, his expertise is in epidemiology and viral pathogens, which is not directly relevant to the toxicological or nutritional effects of synthetic food additives.
Identifying the disconnect between the evidence (an expert in viruses) and the conclusion (dietary policy on food additives) exposes the core logical vulnerability.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this specific flaw.
The correct choice identifies the illegitimate appeal to authority.
This directly matches the flaw demonstrated in the stimulus.

Key Concept

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Rate this question

Topics

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

More questions from this topic