Q19 - Consumer Advocate: In some countries, certain produce

[chiach2]

Can someplease please briefly describe why B is correct? I know why A,C,D, E are wrong. But why is B correct?

[js_martin01]

In a very condensed form, the argument asserts that one should avoid irradiated foods for reasons 1, 2, and 3.

Any choice that will attack these premises in which the author's argument depends will be a valid choice, and thus cannot be the correct answer. The correct answer will be a choice that does not hurt the argument, or cast doubt upon it.

(B) is the correct answer because - for a lack of a better way to phrase it - it does not weaken the advocate's position. It doesn't matter if cancer and other serious problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays. Notice how this answer choice does not preclude the possibility that there are forms of radiation and gamma rays that contribute to serious health problems and/or cancer. On balance, it does not weaken the argument because it leaves this possibility wide open.

Incorrect Answers:
(A) attacks premise three, weakening the argument.
(C) attacks premise two, weakening the argument.
(D) shows that irradiated food contains less harmful chemicals than in most kinds of food, weakening the argument.
(E) weakens the argument by showing that a study found the incidence of cancer no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not.

HTH.

[shirando21]

Can someplease please briefly describe why B is correct? I know why A,C,D, E are wrong. But why is B correct?

From the argument, we know that radiolytic products causes serious health problems including cancer, this is one reason to avoid irradiated foods.

B says, there are many other reasons that can cause cancer and other serious health problems. This does not exclude the possibility that cancer and other serious health problems are caused by radiolytic products. This is why it does not weaken the argument.

hope that helps.

[Gerald]

PT65, S4, Q19 (Weaken Except).

Each of the following, if true, weakens the consumer advocate’s argument EXCEPT:

(A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food.
(B) Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.
(C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged.
(D) The amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods.
(E) A study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not.

(B) is correct.

This argument provides three premises in support of the conclusion that there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods: 1) they were exposed to substances that produce gamma rays; 2) irradiation can reduce vitamins and leave harmful chemical residue; and 3) irradiation spawns cancer causing radiolytic products.

We’re dealing with a "weaken except" question task, which means four choices will weaken the argument. The correct answer will either strengthen the conclusion or, more likely, be irrelevant to it. With at least four ways to weaken, we shouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of gaps. What issues can we spot?

Between the first premise and conclusion: are gamma rays bad and does the irradiated food suffer from exposure to gamma rays? Between the second premise and conclusion: sure irradiation "can" reduce vitamin content, does that mean it does so often enough to be harmful? Between the third premise and conclusion: are these naughty radiolytic products actually found in the irradiated food?

(A) This choice weakens by attacking the third gap. It tells us radiolytics are seldom found in irradiated food. Eliminate.

(C) This choice weakens by addressing the second gap we spotted. It tells us irradiation hardly ever changes vitamin content, because in "virtually all" cases the vitamin content is unchanged. If the vitamin content is basically never reduced, it’s one less reason to worry about eating irradiated foods. Eliminate.

(D) This choice weakens by attacking the second premise. The argument told us irradiation can lead to harmful residue, but this choice tells us the amount of harmful chemicals in irradiated food is less than harmful chemicals that occur naturally. If natural food has more harmful chemicals than irradiated food, why avoid the irradiated food? Eliminate.

(E) This choice attacks the gap between the third premise and the conclusion. The
argument implied irradiated food could cause cancer, but this choice says cancer rates will be no higher. Eliminate.

That leaves (B): Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.

So what? Maybe cancer can also be caused by bathing in nuclear runoff, but that doesn’t mean I want three square meals of radiolytics too, does it? (B) has no effect on the argument to avoid irradiated food, so it’s our answer.

[NewtonY782]

Answer B is basically saying: smoking is bad health, but there are other ways that can cause a person to have bad health, so smoking is not bad for your health. This would not weaken the argument.