Self-study
Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law requiring that foods containing genetically altered ingredients be labeled accordingly. ████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ████████████ █████ █████████ █████████████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███████ █████ █████ ███████████ ██████████ █████████████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ ██████████
Summary
When a law requiring genetically altered ingredients to be listed was passed, food producers got rid of those ingredients. Because many crops are altered, if food producers get rid of them, then alternatives would need to be produced. Those alternatives are generally bad. Therefore, other places should not pass similar laws.
Notable Assumptions
This argument begins with a specific case study, before eventually moving to a general statement that, based on what happened in that case study, other countries should not pass similar laws. However, it does not provide any reason to believe that similar laws in other countries would be met with the same reaction. There is a necessary assumption there - that what happened in the UK is indicative of what would happen in other countries. There is also an assumption that the bad effects of the law actually generally outweigh the benefits, and therefore countries shouldn’t just pass similar laws even though there would be negative consequences.
17.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████████████ ████████ ████████
a
In general, people █████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████████
While this might explain why people reacted the way they did, we do not need to assume a specific reason for the reaction in order for the argument to discuss the negative consequences of that reaction.
b
Before the United ███████ ██████████ █ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ███████████ ███████ ████████████
The argument already states that many foods contain genetically altered ingredients, and there is no need for a further assumption that in the specific case study almost all foods fell into that category.,
c
The reactions of ████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████
This explains why other countries should learn from the UK’s example. If this were not true, then the case study of the UK would not be relevant to the other countries, and they would have no reason not to pass similar laws.
d
Warning labels on ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████████
This may not be relevant, as the argument implies that these labels are not warning labels, but if it is relevant it actually undermines the argument. If this were true, and genetically altered ingredients are bad, then this may be a reason to implement similar laws despite the bad consequences.
e
Countries that institute ███ ████ ████████ ███████████ █████ ██████████ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███████
Whether or not these new regulations tend to cause a change in consumers’ eating habits is not relevant to the argument’s specific focus on how producers will make harmful changes in response to the new regulations.