LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 2, Question 2
Identify the FlawArgument structure
Only by refusing to drink fluoridated water will John be sure to not develop bone cancer.
Fluoridated water has been linked to bone cancer in male rats.
Explanation
John has identified one potential cause of bone cancer, fluoridated water. But then he concludes that by cutting out fluoridated water from his diet he will be completely safe from bone cancer.
This conclusion is not logical, there could be other causes of bone cancer. John is failing to account for alternative causes of bone cancer.
Answer choices
This is unrelated to the conclusion, which is just that John will be safe from bone cancer. He doesn't have to consider how the water affects other people.
This is unrelated to the conclusion, which is just about John being safe from bone cancer.
This doesn't matter. John's conclusion is that he should stop drinking fluoridated water to be safe from bone cancer, whether or not there were brief periods where water wasn't fluoridated would not affect that.
Again, unrelated to the conclusion. John is saying that the he'll only be safe from bone cancer if he cuts out fluoridated water. Potential benefits of the fluoride wouldn't affect his argument.
This points out the problem with John's argument. There may be other ways he could get bone cancer, so cutting out fluoridated water may not cause him to be safe from bone cancer.