PrepTest 128, Section 3, Question 17
Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law(73 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AIn general, people(12 more words not shown)
- BBefore the United(24 more words not shown)
- CThe reactions of(30 more words not shown)
- DWarning labels on(13 more words not shown)
- ECountries that institute(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The United Kingdom required labels for genetically altered ingredients. Food producers worried that consumers would treat the labels as warnings, so they removed those ingredients.
The environmentalist worries about the consequences for farming. Reduced demand for pest-resistant crops would require alternatives that, according to the passage, are dangerous and pesticide intensive. That is a reason to be concerned about the producers' response.
My initial question is whether we've considered the whole tradeoff. Are there benefits to labeling or costs to these crops that the argument hasn't discussed? The environmentalist identifies a downside of labeling, but that alone doesn't tell us everything we'd want to know about the policy.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument depends on. Keep the actual recommendation in view: other countries should avoid these labeling laws. The answer may identify a necessary connection in that recommendation even if it doesn't resolve every concern about the policy.
Working the answers
- A
The producers feared this interpretation; the consumers don't have to actually make it. Imagine producers removing the ingredients out of fear even though customers would have been perfectly comfortable buying them. The producers' reaction and the resulting loss of demand for those crops could still occur. A isn't required.
- B
Nearly all foods needn't have contained the ingredients for their removal to matter. The environmentalist's reasoning could operate even if a much smaller share did. This particular claim about the market before the law doesn't supply a requirement of the argument.
- CCorrect
This addresses the transfer from the United Kingdom to other countries, rather than my initial concern about the overall tradeoff. The argument uses the British producers' reaction to predict a harmful consequence elsewhere. That requires expecting producers elsewhere to react similarly.
Suppose producers in the other countries would keep using the ingredients despite the labels. Then the cited British experience wouldn't establish the loss of demand or the need for pesticide-intensive alternatives in those countries. C supplies the connection the recommendation relies on.
- D
Proven reductions in consumer purchases aren't required. As with A, the producers can change their ingredients because of what they fear customers will do, even if warning labels haven't been shown to reduce consumption.
- E
This broad pattern about actual eating habits doesn't have to hold. The mechanism in this argument runs through producers' anticipation of a reaction. Their decisions could reduce demand for genetically altered crops without consumers changing their eating habits in the way E describes.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.