PT 64 section 3 #19

    • June 3, 2016 at 5:18 pm #1958

      can this be considered be an apple to oranges fallacy?? I know it’s good to think of fallacies in more than one way, but apples to oranges seems to be pretty clear cut. You’re either comparing one thing to another, or you’re not.  It seems like I’m getting an assumption every test that has an apples to oranges fallacy

    • June 9, 2016 at 3:23 pm #1977

      Ok so I’m think I’m almost positive that this is apples to oranges, but just looking for confirmation

    • June 10, 2016 at 6:51 am #1978
      Mike Kim

      Yeah, I think you can definitely see it that way — the author is jumping from a fact about there being less waste using biological catalysts to saying that thus disposing of that waste will be less expensive. In making that leap, the author is assuming that the waste produced is comparable (like apples to apples) but maybe it’s not — maybe the biological catalysts create less waste, but it happens  to be more toxic and more expensive to dispose of — and (D) addresses that issue — HTH — MK

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.