PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 6
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would(114 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(16 more words not shown)
- AAfter irradiation, food(17 more words not shown)
- BIrradiated food would(17 more words not shown)
- CVitamin loss is(5 more words not shown)
- DVitamins can be(9 more words not shown)
- EThat food does(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if those lost vitamins matter? The proponent treats the comparison to cooking as reassurance: irradiation causes a familiar kind of loss, so we shouldn't object on nutritional grounds. But saying the loss resembles one we already accept doesn't fully explain why we should accept it here. I still want to know what happens to the food's nutritional value when we use this process.
What we’re looking for
The passage also raises safety issues, including the opponent's concern about removing warning odors while leaving the bacteria that cause botulism alive. This question, however, narrows our job to the proponent's reasoning about vitamin losses. We need a reason that the comparison to cooking doesn't settle the nutrition concern. An unrelated objection to the process won't answer that specific question.
Working the answers
- A
The proponent promises to prevent spoilage before the food reaches consumers in stores, not to preserve it forever after purchase. Food eventually spoiling at home doesn't expose a problem in the vitamin comparison. Even a useful preservation method can have a limited effect.
- BCorrect
Irradiation doesn't necessarily replace cooking. The food can lose vitamins during irradiation and then lose more when it is cooked. That makes “about as much as cooking” a poor reason to dismiss the added nutritional loss.
For a hypothetical example, start with 100 units of a vitamin. Suppose cooking alone leaves 50. If irradiation first reduces the amount to 50 and cooking then removes half of what remains, we end with 25. Those numbers are just an illustration, but the difference is clear: two rounds of loss can leave less than one.
The other half of B addresses eating the food raw. That doesn't restore the vitamins already lost during irradiation; the food no longer has the usual vitamin advantage of avoiding the loss from cooking. Either way, the proponent can't simply point to ordinary cooking losses and declare the nutritional objection answered. My initial concern was that the vitamins could matter. B shows exactly why the comparison understates the concern.
- C
The proponent addresses both nutrition and safety. Calling them separate issues doesn't make vitamin loss unimportant to the nutrition claim, and it doesn't show what is wrong with comparing irradiation to cooking. We still need a flaw in that comparison.
- D
Being able to get vitamins from pills doesn't tell us whether irradiation adds a nutritional loss to this food. Someone could take a supplement and still have a reason to object to that loss. D offers another source of vitamins without exposing the problem in the proponent's reasoning.
- E
Who primarily benefits from preventing spoilage is a different question. Even if sellers benefit most, that doesn't show that the proponent has mishandled the vitamin comparison. We need a nutritional objection, not a comparison of the parties receiving the benefit.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.