PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 19
Consumer advocate: In some countries, certain produce is(61 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(7 more words not shown)
- AUnique radiolytic products(8 more words not shown)
- BCancer and other(15 more words not shown)
- CA study showed(13 more words not shown)
- DThe amount of(19 more words not shown)
- EA study showed(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How large are these risks?
Longer shelf life could be useful, so the advocate needs a reason to avoid the treated food despite that benefit. Exposure to something radioactive sounds alarming, but exposure by itself doesn't tell us how much harm results. The later claims about lost vitamins, residues, and cancer-causing products give us more specific concerns to investigate.
Even then, amounts and frequency matter. A tiny vitamin reduction would be different from losing most of the vitamins. A harmful product found only rarely would present a different concern from one routinely found in substantial quantities. Those are possible ways to challenge how much weight the advocate puts on these problems.
What we’re looking for
This is an EXCEPT question. Four answers weaken the case for avoidance; the correct answer is the one that doesn't. It can simply be irrelevant. As we read, ask which stated concern each answer reduces, if any.
Working the answers
- A
This weakens the concern about unique radiolytic products by saying they have seldom been found in irradiated food. Seldom doesn't mean never, but it makes that particular hazard appear less widespread than the warning might suggest. Eliminate A because we're looking for the nonweakener.
- BCorrect
Other causes of cancer don't show that irradiated foods aren't also a cause. The advocate never claims gamma rays are the only source of serious health problems. Adding other dangers leaves the alleged danger from these foods untouched, so this answer does not weaken the argument.
- C
This directly challenges the vitamin-loss concern. If irradiation leaves vitamin content unchanged in virtually all fruits and vegetables, that particular reason to avoid the food is much less compelling. It needn't address every other concern to weaken the argument.
- D
This gives context to the amount of harmful chemicals: it is lower than what naturally occurs in most foods. That reduces the force of presenting their mere presence as a special reason to avoid irradiated foods. The comparison doesn't prove complete safety, but it weakens one of the advocate's reasons.
- E
If consumers of irradiated foods don't have a higher cancer rate than nonconsumers, the claimed cancer danger receives less support. The study doesn't prove irradiation can never cause cancer, but it gives evidence against the expected increase in risk. That makes E a weakener, leaving B as the exception.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.