Contropositive wrote:
Hi MartyMurray
I'm not sure that I agree with above explanation. I think, (A) is not even remotely close. I would request you to review my below logical rejection for(A).
Premise: When fish or mammals ingest the chemical rotenone, enzymes in the digestive tract metabolize most of it, rendering it harmless, but if enough rotenone enters the bloodstream, it CAN killthem
Conclusion: if enough rotenone is used to kill fish, mammals MUST be at risk too.
Two things i noted:
1. Argument goes from CAN to MUST
2. Here, no comparison has been made between the ''risk'' if enough rotenone isused.
Quote:
A. Rotenone can enter a fish's bloodstream directly through thegills.
This seems to be a ''so what?'' answer. I need an option which says that: Hey, mammals may not be atrisk
All this option says is ''Rotenone CAN enter fish's bloodstream directly. Does it say that, Rotenone enters directly more easily in Fish than in mammals? I don't think so.
Just because fish will be
...
Statistics : Posted by MartyMurray • on 17 Apr 2024, 11:36 • Replies 4 • Views 1079
