- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:00 pm
#63916
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B)
The question requires us to find the strongest counter to the commentator’s argument—that is, the
choice that will show the commentator’s solution is not necessarily advisable. We might look for the
choice that points to some other detriment associated with carcinogens, even in smaller amounts as
suggested.
Answer choice (A): Just because the level at which a given food additive can cause cancer
in children is only half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults, this does not hurt the
commentator’s argument. The commentator points to the extreme example of a single molecule, and
the argument is that it might be safe to consume some such additives—an amount that is greater than
zero. Such a small amount could still fall significantly below the children’s cancer causing level as
well, so this choice fails to weaken the commentator’s argument.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If small amounts of several carcinogens
would be enough to cause cancer, then any amount in a given food might be too much.
Answer choice (C): Since the distinction between naturally-occurring and deliberately-added
carcinogenic substances is not discussed in either argument, the legislator has no reason to suspect
that commentator’s proposition would target only the deliberately-added chemicals.
Answer choice (D): At issue is not whether the benefit provided by some food additives can
outweigh the increased risk of cancer, but whether the acceptable level of such additives should be
set at zero. For the legislator to engage in any sort of cost-benefit analysis would entirely miss the
point.
Answer choice (E): Just because all food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place
does not help determine whether the commentator’s objection is a valid one. Why use a substitute
if the cancer-causing additive is never used in quantities that are large enough to cause harm? This
answer choice does not weaken the commentator’s conclusion and is therefore incorrect.
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B)
The question requires us to find the strongest counter to the commentator’s argument—that is, the
choice that will show the commentator’s solution is not necessarily advisable. We might look for the
choice that points to some other detriment associated with carcinogens, even in smaller amounts as
suggested.
Answer choice (A): Just because the level at which a given food additive can cause cancer
in children is only half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults, this does not hurt the
commentator’s argument. The commentator points to the extreme example of a single molecule, and
the argument is that it might be safe to consume some such additives—an amount that is greater than
zero. Such a small amount could still fall significantly below the children’s cancer causing level as
well, so this choice fails to weaken the commentator’s argument.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If small amounts of several carcinogens
would be enough to cause cancer, then any amount in a given food might be too much.
Answer choice (C): Since the distinction between naturally-occurring and deliberately-added
carcinogenic substances is not discussed in either argument, the legislator has no reason to suspect
that commentator’s proposition would target only the deliberately-added chemicals.
Answer choice (D): At issue is not whether the benefit provided by some food additives can
outweigh the increased risk of cancer, but whether the acceptable level of such additives should be
set at zero. For the legislator to engage in any sort of cost-benefit analysis would entirely miss the
point.
Answer choice (E): Just because all food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place
does not help determine whether the commentator’s objection is a valid one. Why use a substitute
if the cancer-causing additive is never used in quantities that are large enough to cause harm? This
answer choice does not weaken the commentator’s conclusion and is therefore incorrect.