Self-study
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to cause cancer.
████████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ █ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██████████████ ███████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ █████████ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ █ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ █ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████████ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ █████
Summarize Argument
The commentator concludes that there should be a maximum acceptable level for potentially cancer-causing substances in food that is above zero but below the amount shown to cause cancer. This is because an absolute prohibition, as proposed by the legislator, is excessive, as one can consume some amount of these substances without increasing their risk of cancer.
Notable Assumptions
The commentator assumes that while it may be safe to consume some amount of these substances in one food without increasing one’s risk of cancer, this risk does not increase significantly if one consumes this same amount in various foods. In the same vein, the commentator assumes that ingesting a safe amount of one problematic chemical in addition to safe amounts of other problematic chemicals does not significantly increase one’s cancer risk.
7.
Of the following, which one, ██ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ █████████
a
The level at █████ █ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. There is no reason to believe that the commentator’s suggested maximum acceptable levels for each substance do not account for children’s tolerance as well as that of adults.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion. In other words, it feints an attack on the premises or conclusion. If correlation is present, the answer choice is often merely an outlier datapoint, which is actually entirely consistent with the correlation.
b
Consuming small amounts ██ ███████ █████████ ██████████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████████ ████████ █████ ████
This weakens the commentator’s argument. It exploits the commentator’s assumption that the risk of cancer does not substantially increase when a safe amount of one problematic chemical is consumed in addition to a safe amount of another problematic chemical.
c
The law would ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████████████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████████████ ███████████
This does not affect the commentator’s argument, which discusses how chemicals should be regulated, not which chemicals should be regulated. If only some chemicals are covered, the commentator would just argue that acceptable limits should be set instead of complete prohibitions.
d
For some food ██████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The commentator does not compare the risk of cancer posed by additives to the potential benefit one derives from consuming them.
e
All food additives ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██████
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The existence of alternatives for the additives does not offer insight into how well the commentator’s proposed approach would work for either the additives or the alternatives, especially in contrast to the legislator’s approach.