PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 5
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would(114 more words not shown)
The opponent's argument proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Aisolating an ambiguity(8 more words not shown)
- Bshowing that claims(9 more words not shown)
- Cestablishing that undesirable(12 more words not shown)
- Dshifting perspective from(11 more words not shown)
- Epointing out an(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keeping food from spoiling sounds useful. But are leftover radiation and vitamin loss the only safety and nutrition questions?
The proponent addresses those two concerns and adds a benefit: killing Salmonella. I can see why those points favor the process. Still, killing something harmful doesn't establish that a process has no other drawback. Could it also remove something useful, or leave another hazard unaddressed?
The opponent identifies a specific problem. The process leaves the bacteria that cause botulism alive while killing bacteria that produce warning odors. Food could therefore lose a signal that would have alerted consumers to the danger. That is a reason the safety discussion isn't finished just because no radiation remains.
What we’re looking for
Then the opponent offers a chemical dip that safely kills both Salmonella and the bacteria causing botulism. We aren't merely told the first option has a problem; we're given another way to obtain its bacteria-killing benefit. The question asks how this response works. I'd describe the two moves together: point out a downside, then present an alternative that gets the desired benefit without that particular problem.
Working the answers
- A
The opponent doesn't turn the argument on a word with two meanings. The dispute concerns what the proposed process does to different bacteria and the resulting risk. There is no crucial term being redefined or clarified.
- B
The opponent introduces a fact that challenges the broad safety conclusion. That isn't the same as showing that the proponent's own claims contradict one another. Leaving no radiation, causing vitamin losses like cooking and killing Salmonella can all be true while the botulism issue remains.
- C
This would say either remedy produces an undesirable consequence. The opponent doesn't identify a drawback of the chemical dip; it is described as safe. The argument distinguishes the remedies by presenting a problem with irradiation and an alternative that avoids it.
- D
The concern remains the consumers' safety. The missing odors would deprive consumers of a warning about contaminated food. Nothing shifts the discussion to whether factory workers or other producers are safe while processing the food.
- ECorrect
Killing Salmonella is an advantage the proponent claims for irradiation. The chemical dip obtains that advantage and also kills the bacteria causing botulism.
That matters because irradiation could leave the botulism hazard while eliminating its warning odors. The proposed alternative removes the hazard rather than leaving consumers without that warning. E captures both parts of the response: retain a benefit and avoid a particular downside. The opponent doesn't have to reject every stated advantage of irradiation to make that comparison.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.