Air pollution from a rural factory may have caused increased levels of carbon dioxide in the air, but the argument that the increased level of carbon dioxide is harming the local livestock is clearly without merit; the amount of carbon dioxide near the factory is, in fact, less than that found in cities like Los Angeles every day. The argument is vulnerable to criticism because it ['uses generalizations about a class to draw conclusions about an individual entity in that class', "uses a fact to support a conclusion when that fact's relevance has yet to be determined", "in fact, grants a concession that is fatal to the argument's conclusion", 'supports its conclusion by using two conflicting claims']