#5 - Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

The “proponent” in this stimulus suggests gamma ray irradiation to keep food from spoiling, based on the facts that it kills Salmonella, and that vitamin depletion is comparable to that of cooking. The “opponent” disagrees, pointing out two shortcomings of irradiation: it has no effect on botulism, and it would get rid of the warning-sign odor. Additionally, the opponent points out a safe, chemical alternative to irradiation which kills both Salmonella and botulism-causing bacteria.

The question asks for the method of reasoning chosen by the opponent, a question whose answer can certainly be prephrased: the opponent responds by:

• i) pointing out shortcomings of the proponents plan; and
  
  ii) suggesting another option for solving the proponent’s problem.

Correct answer choice (E) restates our prephrase above, in more concise terms: the opponent suggests an alternative without the associated detriment.

Answer choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because the issue is with the proponent’s solution, not with any ambiguity or self-contradiction. Answer choice (C) is wrong because the opponent’s suggestion does not bring with it the same undesirable consequences. Answer choice (D) is incorrect because there is no such shift in perspective reflected in the proponent’s argument.

[blade21cn]

Can anyone explain why (C) is incorrect? The opponent did mention an undesirable consequence - The bacteria that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Is (C) wrong because it is "one consequence (singular)" in the stimulus, as opposed to "consequences (plural)" in the answer choice? That's kinda too creepy for me. Or is it wrong because "result from adoption of either one of two proposed remedies"? The proponent is rooting for irradiation and the opponent is rooting for a safe chemical dip. So those count for two proposed remedies. Or the wording of (C) requires that the two remedies have to be both coming from the proponent, but in the stimulus he's just discussing one of them? Or the wording of "either one of two proposed remedies" should be interpreted to mean "any one of those two proposed remedies," or actually "both"? This is the most frustrating thing about LSAT. LSAC only releases answer key, without providing official explanations. Sometimes, it feels like the real reason is still up for grabs. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Focus on the stem here, blade21cn - we are looking for how the Opponent's argument proceeds, not the entire combination of what both the Proponent and Opponent said. How does the Opponent make his argument? By showing that the Proponent's plan has a problem that his plan avoids. At no point does the Opponent suggest that his plan (chemical dip) has any undesirable consequences! He thinks it's great! It's safe, and it eliminates salmonella and botulism. No problems!

Make sure when you answer a Method of Reasoning question that a) you are analyzing the correct argument (in this case, just the argument made by the Opponent), and 2) your answer choice accurately describes exactly what happened in that argument, adding nothing that was not present in the stimulus (that's the Fact TestTM, which we talk about mainly in relation to Must Be True questions but which applies with equal force to Method, Flaw, and Parallel Reasoning, among others).

You're right that LSAC doesn't provide a lot of explanations - but that's why we are here! Keep coming back for help, and we'll be here for you!

[blade21cn]

Thanks for your prompt reply, Adam. I felt I'm in good hands here!

Just a followup, here's how I broke down Opponent's argument. He provided the following three premises: (1) Proponent's irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism; (2) it kills the bacteria that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism; (3) his/her plan of a safe chemical dip can easily kill Salmonella and the botulism bacteria. Specifically, page 1-42 of the course book lists "moreover," which starts (3) in the stimulus, as a premise indicator. So Opponent did not provide a conclusion here, at least not explicitly. I think LSAC is doing us a little trick here. By giving the two interlocutors the titles of "Proponent" and "Opponent," Opponent's conclusion would naturally be that he disagrees with Proponent's conclusion, which needs not be stated.

I felt (C) is referring to premises (1) and (2) as undesirable consequences resulting from the adoption of Proponent's proposed remedy, while (E) is referring to premise (3). In (E), "without risking a particular disadvantage" can be construed to include (1) and (2) as premises, but that's only explainable if you look at (3) as the conclusion. But as I said, "moreover" really throws me off, as a result of which I deemed (3) as an additional premise. So I was stuck between (C) and (E), as they both partially describes Opponent's argument. But ultimately, I think "the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies" in (C) is vague and ambiguous, while "an alternative way" in (E) was crystal clear - "a safe chemical dip." So it was really a tough call for me.

[James Finch]

Hi Blade,

You're absolutely correct that neither the proponent nor the opponent are making full arguments, as neither one one actually states a conclusion. Instead, the conclusion is meant to be inferred from the nomenclature given: the proponent is arguing for the use of irradiation of foodstuffs, while the opponent is opposed to its use. The question stem then is asking us what premises the opponent is using to attack the proponent's argument.

Prephrasing is very helpful here. Working from the first sentence, we can see that the opponent begins by bringing up a potential problem with the irradiation process (botulism) and then brings up a potential alternative to irradiation that doesn't have the same botulism problem while still possessing at least one of the same advantages that irradiation has (killing salmonella bacteria). So the big takeaway for a Prephrase here is that the opponent is bringing up an alternative process.

(C)'s big issue is that it simply doesn't describe what is going on in the stimulus; the opponent isn't claiming that the chemical has any disadvantages (although it might), while pointing out that the irradiation process does. This is why the above Prephrase helps so much, as it allows us to see what elements we need in a correct answer choice.

(E) is correct because it precisely describes, even more so than my Prephrase, how the opponent brings up an alternative that lacks a disadvantage that irradiation has. Both processes kill Salmonella, but only the chemical dip also kills botulism.

Hope this clears things up!