PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 7
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must(82 more words not shown)
Of the following, which one,(15 more words not shown)
- AThe level at(28 more words not shown)
- BConsuming small amounts(22 more words not shown)
- CThe law would(19 more words not shown)
- DFor some food(26 more words not shown)
- EAll food additives(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A detectable amount isn't necessarily a dangerous amount. I can see the commentator's point: a test might find a tiny quantity even when much larger quantities would still fall below the harmful level described in the passage.
Imagine a hypothetical chemical becomes dangerous at 1,000 units. The commentator proposes setting its permitted level below that point, perhaps 800 units, instead of requiring zero. Those numbers are just an illustration of the proposal, not real safety limits.
What we’re looking for
Now the legislator needs a response. What could go wrong with those separate limits? My first thought is that someone might consume several servings and take in much more than expected. We could also question whether manufacturers would obey the limits. Either concern would challenge whether this approach actually keeps food safe. Let's see what problem the answers identify.
Working the answers
- A
Children might need a lower limit than adults, but the commentator can set the limit low enough to protect children. The proposal is to stay below the dangerous level; it doesn't require using an adult threshold for everyone. A gives us a reason to choose the threshold carefully, not the strongest reason to reject the approach.
- BCorrect
This develops a related concern to the multiple-servings prediction, but with different chemicals. A small amount of one chemical may be safe by itself, and a small amount of another may also be safe by itself. Consuming both can still create a cancer risk.
Imagine one substance in a drink, another in crackers, and another in bread. Each could satisfy its individual limit while the combination remained dangerous. The commentator's separate limits don't account for that interaction. B therefore gives the legislator a strong response to the claim that staying below each chemical's individual danger level is enough.
- C
This clarifies what the proposed ban would cover: deliberate additions, not naturally occurring substances. It doesn't show why a nonzero limit for an added chemical would be unsafe. The disagreement concerns whether tiny permitted amounts pose a danger, not merely how the substances got into the food.
- D
If an additive provides no benefit at a safe level, there might be little reason to use it under the commentator's rule. That doesn't show the permitted amount is unsafe. Manufacturers could leave that additive out. The answer questions the usefulness of allowing certain low doses, not the safety of the proposed limits generally.
- E
Having substitutes could make a ban easier to implement. But the existence of an alternative doesn't show that the original additive is unsafe below its danger level, and we're not told that every substitute is safer. B challenges the safety mechanism itself, which gives the legislator a more direct counterargument.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.