Self-study
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ █ ███ ████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ████████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that irradiated food is not safe for people to eat. He bases this conclusion on the findings of a group of scientists that show flaws in the methods used in earlier studies that showed that irradiated food was safe to consume.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author takes the panel’s finding that the studies were flawed as proof that the studies’ conclusion is false. However, a lack of support for a conclusion does not show that the opposite of the conclusion is true. The studies’ conclusion that irradiated food is safe might be unsupported because of their flawed methodology, but the author never volunteered other evidence that the food is unsafe, so the author’s conclusion is unsupported as well.
23.
The reasoning in the activist's ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████
a
treats a failure ██ █████ █ █████ ██ ████████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████
The studies failed to prove their claim that irradiated food is safe because they used a flawed methodology, and the author takes this to mean that irradiated food has been proven unsafe. However, just because something is unsupported does not mean it has been proven untrue.
b
treats methodological flaws ██ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████████████ ████████ ████████████
The author never speculates as to whether it is possible to perform a study that soundly proves or disproves the safety of irradiated food. Instead, he uses the studies' methodological flaws as proof that the opposite of their conclusions is true.
c
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ████ █ █████ █████ ███████████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████
The author does not consider this fact, but that is because it is irrelevant to argument. A study with sound methodology is not part of this argument - our author discusses only studies with flawed methodology.
d
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ██████
The author does not say that irradiated food is unsafe for humans because animal testing does not prove safety for human consumption. The difference between animal and human consumption is not relevant to this argument.
e
fails to establish ████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ███████
The independent scientists’ level of knowledge about food irradiation is not relevant to this argument; instead, the author zeroes in on the independent scientists’ assessment of the soundness of the methodology used in the studies.