PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 23
Consumer advocate: TMD, a pesticide used on peaches,(79 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe possibility that(23 more words not shown)
- BThe consequences of(19 more words not shown)
- CUse of a(26 more words not shown)
- DSociety has a(28 more words not shown)
- EMeasures taken to(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The average person isn't necessarily the person eating the peaches.
Imagine a national average of three peaches per person per year. That could include many people eating none and a smaller number eating peaches every day. The passage makes the uneven distribution explicit: 80 percent eat no peaches, while some people, including small children, consume much more than the average. A test of the average dose doesn't automatically cover those heavier consumers.
Would more TMD be harmful? That's a useful question. One way to support the concern would be to show that larger doses create a danger. But perhaps even those larger doses are harmless. We shouldn't assume the answer merely because the amount is higher.
What we’re looking for
Notice the advocate's actual conclusion: the practice has not been shown acceptable. That is different from saying it has been shown dangerous. For the principle question, we need a rule explaining why the missing evidence about high consumers prevents the existing evidence from establishing acceptability.
Working the answers
- A
This urges caution because later research might uncover risks even at low doses. The advocate's specific concern is different: some people receive much higher doses than the national average. A doesn't connect that gap in the evidence to the claim that this practice has not been shown acceptable.
- B
The required majority isn't present. Eighty percent of the population eat no peaches, and the concern is the larger doses received by a smaller group. A rule triggered by most people ingesting the pesticide doesn't justify this reasoning.
- CCorrect
Acceptability requires showing that the pesticide doesn't harm any portion of the population. Evidence about the national-average dose leaves that requirement unestablished for people consuming much larger amounts.
This takes a different route from proving that high doses are dangerous: it places the burden on showing safety for the exposed groups. The intended-purpose requirement is another condition, but meeting that one wouldn't remove the need to establish safety. Without the relevant showing for heavy consumers, the advocate can say acceptability hasn't been established.
- D
The exception brings us back to low average doses that haven't been shown harmful. That's precisely why an average-based rule is a poor fit for this concern: it can leave out children whose actual intake is much higher. A general duty to protect children doesn't fix the answer's failure to address that difference.
- E
This describes protective measures causing a more serious harm. The advocate hasn't established that TMD causes such harm, much less compared its seriousness with a harm being prevented. The conclusion concerns a missing demonstration of acceptability. E would require findings the passage doesn't supply.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.