[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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