- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:05 pm
#105165
Hi npant120,
The argument in the stimulus is basically saying, "if pollen from a drug-producing crop were to drift into nearby field with an ordinary food crop, there is a risk of the drugs entering our food supply."
Answer B is basically saying, "if we can prevent pollen from drifting, then there is no risk of the drugs entering our food supply." This doesn't weaken the original argument because the argument has already taken that into account. In other words, the consumer advocate would respond to Answer B by saying "Yes, that's my point! If we can prevent it from drifting, then great! But what if we can't prevent it from drifting?" For B to weaken the original argument, it would need to be established that pollen can be 100% prevented from drifting. If that were established, then the risk of drifting would be eliminated.
To give you a parallel case, imagine I say, "If we don't stop using fossil fuels, global warming will continue." And you reply, "But if we do stop using fossil fuels, then global warming will stop." That reply doesn't weaken my claim, it is consistent with my claim.
The argument in the stimulus is basically saying, "if pollen from a drug-producing crop were to drift into nearby field with an ordinary food crop, there is a risk of the drugs entering our food supply."
Answer B is basically saying, "if we can prevent pollen from drifting, then there is no risk of the drugs entering our food supply." This doesn't weaken the original argument because the argument has already taken that into account. In other words, the consumer advocate would respond to Answer B by saying "Yes, that's my point! If we can prevent it from drifting, then great! But what if we can't prevent it from drifting?" For B to weaken the original argument, it would need to be established that pollen can be 100% prevented from drifting. If that were established, then the risk of drifting would be eliminated.
To give you a parallel case, imagine I say, "If we don't stop using fossil fuels, global warming will continue." And you reply, "But if we do stop using fossil fuels, then global warming will stop." That reply doesn't weaken my claim, it is consistent with my claim.