#19 - Consumer advocate: In some countries, certain produce

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

WeakenX. The correct answer choice is (B)

Your task in this Weaken—Except question is to select the answer choice that does not weaken the
consumer advocate’s argument, meaning it either has no effect on the argument or strengthens it. The
argument, reordered for clarity, proceeds:

Premise: in some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays to
extend shelf life

Premise: irradiated foods are exposed to radiated substances

Premise: irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving harmful
chemical residues

Premise: irradiation spawns unique radiolytic products that can cause serious health
problems, including cancer

Conclusion: thus, there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods

Your prephrase is that the correct answer will either strengthen or have no effect on the conclusion
that there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Each of the incorrect choices will weaken the
conclusion, and it is most likely that at least one of the choices will connect directly to each of the
premises.

Answer choice (A): This information attacks the conclusion by suggesting that the benefit of
irradiation may outweigh the danger, which seldom actually occurs.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This choice has no effect on the conclusion,
because the unrelated causes of cancer and other serious health problems are irrelevant to the
argument.

Answer choice (C): As with choice (A), this information suggests the benefits of irradiation
outweigh the risks.

Answer choice (D): This choice suggests that the level of harmful chemicals found in irradiated
foods is negligible, and that by this metric irradiated foods may be safer to eat than most kinds of
foods.

Answer choice (E): This choice undermines the conclusion by showing that while the radiolytic
products of irradiation have the potential to cause cancer, there is no evidence that they in fact cause
cancer.

[c-erv]

Hello, I am having a hard time seeing why answer choice B doesn't weaken the argument.

B is letting us know that radioactive substances and gamma rays are not solely responsible for cancer and other serious health problems, thus wouldn't it weaken the conclusion that "there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods"? since it's tackling on a negative aspect of irradiated foods?

Thanks

[David Boyle]

Hello, I am having a hard time seeing why answer choice B doesn't weaken the argument.

B is letting us know that radioactive substances and gamma rays are not solely responsible for cancer and other serious health problems, thus wouldn't it weaken the conclusion that "there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods"? since it's tackling on a negative aspect of irradiated foods?

Thanks

Hello c-erv,

Not necessarily, since just because radioactives and gammas aren't solely responsible for cancer etc., still, they are responsible. Falling down a manhole isn't the only cause of accidental injury, but people should still avoid falling down manholes!

Hope this helps,
David

[Oneshot06]

Hi, I just want to double-check my reasoning:

All the wrong answers will hurt the argument. Answer choice B.) doesn't hurt the argument because cancer and other health problems have other causes, not just from irradiated foods, so it doesn't hurt the argument. It doesn't really do anything to the argument so it's the correct answer?

Thx!

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, OneShot! The question stem for an EXCEPT question describes the four wrong answers, so a Weaken-EXCEPT questions has four wrong answers that weaken the argument and a correct answer that does not weaken it. A "Could Be True-EXCEPT" has four wrong answers that Could Be True and one correct answer that Cannot Be True, and so on.

Nicely done!

[teddykim100]

Hello,

would you classify this type of reasoning as causation? The premises all had causal indicators in them (cause, can reduce, that produce).

However, since the evidence all had causal indicators, it was hard to see a correlation/causation error being committed, since there was no correlation, just direct causation.

If that is the case, how would we weaken a causal argument, when causality is already established?

[Hanin Abu Amara]

While there are technically words that are causal. The over all argument isn’t causal. We always want to look to the overall context of the indicators. Here the causal words are in the context of three reasons as to why irritated food is bad.

Your best approach to weaken this question is to show that those reason aren’t that bad.

Hope that answers your question

[LSAT11/24]

*2020 Logical Reasoning Bible Page 372 and Prep Test 65-Section 4-Question 19*

"In order to believe the argument is "well-considered and airtight", an author must assume that every possible objection has been considered and rejected. Consider the causal argument: People who read a lot are more intelligent than other people. Thus, reading must cause a person to be intelligent... Sleeping more than eight hours causes a person to be intelligent, regular exercise causes a person to be intelligent...Each of these ideas would undermine the conclusion, but they are assumed by the author not to be possible."

This is in relation to Assumption questions, so maybe it can not be applied to Weakening questions. However, using this general statement, I feel conflicted and confused with Prep Test 65-Section 4-Question 19 [viewtopic.php?f=504&t=12942] . The question ask us to look for an answer that does NOT weaken the argument.

Answer choice B states: Cancer and other serious health problems have any causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.

How does this not weaken the argument and go against the consumer advocates argument? Is it because it goes against a premise that supports the conclusion and not the conclusion itself?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi LSAT 11/24!

The conclusion in this stimulus is the second sentence: "There are, however, good reasons to avoid irradiated foods." Why does the author conclude this? The author gives several reasons. The third reason is that irradiation can cause health problems, including cancer.

Answer choice (B) relates to but doesn't quite go against that premise, as I understand it. What answer choice (B) is saying is that there are other things besides irradiation that can cause cancer. That seems beside the point, however, because the conclusion is specifically about whether or not to irradiate foods. Even if we take (B) as given, we're still left wondering whether cancer risks are a reason against irradiating foods. Answer choice (B) in the end doesn't do anything to the argument. Since it doesn't weaken the argument, that makes it the correct answer for a weaken except question.