Exam 10, Question 40 (page 175)
Assume that the FDA official who was instrumental in pushing legislation requiring "warning labels" was interviewed. If this official remarked that he had done this only to avoid class-action litigation against the government, this remark would weaken the passage assertion that:
C. fluoride can be dangerous.
This doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain? To me, it would strengthen the argument.
Is this an EK error? Or am I just dumb? It's not listed on the EK website under errata.
Assume that the FDA official who was instrumental in pushing legislation requiring "warning labels" was interviewed. If this official remarked that he had done this only to avoid class-action litigation against the government, this remark would weaken the passage assertion that:
C. fluoride can be dangerous.
This doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain? To me, it would strengthen the argument.
Is this an EK error? Or am I just dumb? It's not listed on the EK website under errata.