Self-paced
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████
█████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ █████████ █ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █ ████ ████████ ████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The proponent argues in favor of gamma ray irradiation of food by pointing out its benefits: it keeps food from spoiling, and kills Salmonella in contaminated poultry, all while leaving no traces of radiation and causing no significant loss of vitamins. For these reasons, the proponent claims that "there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety."
The opponent counters this argument by mentioning a significant disadvantage of irradiation: it does not kill botulism bacteria, and in fact kills bacteria that produce bad smells that warn consumers about botulism. The opponent adds that an alternative method, a safe chemical dip, kills both Salmonella and botulism, thus providing at least one of the benefits of irradiation — killing Salmonella — without the same disadvantage.
6.
Which one of the following █████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██████████ ███████ ███████
a
After irradiation, food █████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █ ████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
Incorrect. The proponent is only talking about keeping food from spoiling before it reaches consumers, not after consumers purchase it. And the point about food spoiling isn't relevant to the point about vitamin losses.
b
Irradiated food would █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ █████
Correct. As we discussed in our analysis, if irradiated food has already lost vitamins before it is cooked, then it would lose even more vitamins if it were cooked. Or if the irradiated food were eaten raw, then it would have fewer vitamins than comparable non-irradiated food. So the comparison of the vitamin loss from irradiation to the vitamin loss from cooking actually obscures the fact that this is still a greater loss overall.
c
Vitamin loss is █ ████████ █████ ████ ███████
Incorrect. The proponent isn't saying that vitamin loss is the same thing as safety: in fact, the proponent acknowledges that the benefits of irradiation can be considered not only in terms of "safety," but also in terms of "nutrition."
d
Vitamins can be ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██████
Incorrect. The fact that vitamins can be ingested in pill form is completely irrelevant to the proponent's argument.
e
That food does ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ █ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████████
Incorrect. The proponent doesn't talk about who benefits from food not spoiling before it reaches the consumer, and this point isn't relevant to the discussion of vitamin losses anyway.