Self-study
Consumer advocate: Support TMD, a pesticide used on peaches, shows no effects on human health when it is ingested in the amount present in the per capita peach consumption in this country. ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ███████ █████████ █████ █████████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████████████████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ █████████
Summary
The consumer advocate concludes that TMD has not been shown to be acceptable. Why? Because some people eat a lot more peaches—and thus more TMD—than the national average, but TMD has only been tested for safety at the average level of peach consumption.
Notable Assumptions
The advocate points out that we don’t know if TMD is safe for people who eat more peaches than average. From this, he concludes that TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable. But he doesn’t explain what makes a pesticide acceptable or unacceptable. He’s assuming that if something hasn’t been shown to be safe for everyone, then it hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.
To help justify his conclusion, we need a principle that satisfies this assumption. This would support the conclusion that TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.
23.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████████████
a
The possibility that ████ ████ █████ █ ███████████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██████
This leads to the wrong conclusion. The advocate doesn’t conclude that there should be more caution in assessing TMD’s overall risks. He concludes that the use of TMD has not been shown to be acceptable.
b
The consequences of █████ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ███
Wrong trigger. We already know that most of the population (80%) does not eat peaches and is thus unlikely to ingest TMD. So (B) can’t help justify the conclusion that TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.
c
Use of a █████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████
Or: if a pesticide is not used for its intended purpose or it has not been shown to be safe for the whole population, then its use is not acceptable. TMD hasn’t been shown to be safe for the whole population. So (C) supports the conclusion that TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.
d
Society has a ███████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████
The advocate uses small children as an example, but she doesn’t conclude that society has a special obligation to protect small children from pesticides. Also, we know that average doses are low and are safe, so (D) wouldn’t trigger anyway.
e
Measures taken to ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ █ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████
We don’t know that TMD was meant to protect the population from harm. We also don’t know that it’s causing serious harm to some people. The author’s just arguing that it hasn’t been shown to be acceptable, since it hasn’t been shown to be safe for everyone.