Final Answer:
The statement that best demonstrates the weakness of Emilio's argument in favor of drinking the water is option C: "Visible vitality doesn't rule out the presence of toxins or chemicals that may be harmful to humans."
Step-by-step explanation:
Emilio's reasoning is flawed because it relies on the visible vitality of the stream, assuming that the presence of water spiders and plants indicates safety. However, option C highlights the critical weakness in this argument. Visible vitality in the stream does not rule out the presence of invisible toxins or chemicals that could be harmful to humans.
The health of aquatic life is not necessarily indicative of water safety for human consumption. Emphasizing the potential existence of hidden dangers in the water, option C effectively exposes the flaw in Emilio's assumption.
Option C is the answer.
"
Complete Question
Consider Emilio's reason for drinking the untreated stream water: "Look, if the stream were poisonous, everything in it would look dead. There are water spiders and plants living in the stream. It's no death trap." Which statement below best demonstrates the weakness of Emilio's argument in favor of drinking the water?
A): Emilio's argument assumes that the visibility of life indicates water safety, neglecting the possibility of invisible contaminants.
B): Presence of water spiders and plants doesn't guarantee the absence of harmful microorganisms or pollutants.
C): Visible vitality doesn't rule out the presence of toxins or chemicals that may be harmful to humans.
D): The health of aquatic life doesn't necessarily reflect the safety of water for human consumption.
"