PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 22
Columnist: There are certain pesticides that, even though(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- ATrace amounts of(24 more words not shown)
- BMost of the(21 more words not shown)
- CThe United States(20 more words not shown)
- DThe banned pesticides(18 more words not shown)
- EThere are many(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We ban a pesticide at home, sell it abroad, and then buy food grown with it. I can see the concern: a pesticide on a banana could come back to us with the banana. Banning its use here wouldn't necessarily prevent that exposure.
But does it still pose a danger by the time we eat the food? What if the pesticide wears off before the crop reaches us? What if direct exposure during application is dangerous, but the residue on the imported food isn't? Those possibilities would make me question how much this practice adds to the health risk for U.S. consumers.
What we’re looking for
We need to weaken that claim. I'd look for something challenging the connection between exporting these pesticides and increasing our own risk. My first thought is about what remains on the food, but let's be open to another way the connection could fail.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us that some old pesticide residue remains in soil. It doesn't show that exporting the pesticides now fails to increase U.S. consumers' risk. Nor does detecting a trace amount establish how dangerous that amount is. The argument concerns the added risk from the export-and-import practice, not simply whether pesticides can remain somewhere for a long time.
- B
The argument is about the banned pesticides that are exported. They could be a small share of total pesticide exports and still create a substantial health risk. Saying that most exports involve other pesticides doesn't tell us what happens to consumers exposed to these particular ones.
- CCorrect
This takes a different route from the residue prediction. Suppose a foreign farm buys these pesticides from U.S. manufacturers. If U.S. sales stopped, could that farm buy the same pesticides from another exporting country? C gives us reason to take that possibility seriously.
The farm might keep using the pesticides, and its food might keep entering the United States. In that case, U.S. manufacturing and exports would make less difference to consumers' exposure than the columnist suggests. C doesn't prove that another supplier would replace every U.S. sale. It weakens the claim by revealing another source of the same pesticides, so ending this particular practice might not remove the risk.
- D
A greater risk abroad can coexist with a substantial risk here. People applying a pesticide could face the greatest danger while U.S. consumers still face an increased risk from eating treated food. Ranking the two groups' risks doesn't show that the added risk to U.S. consumers is small or nonexistent.
- E
These are different pesticides: ones allowed in the United States but banned elsewhere. The argument concerns pesticides banned here and exported for use abroad. Differences between countries' other pesticide rules don't tell us whether this practice increases U.S. consumers' exposure.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.