PT14.S4.Q16 - Not reasonable to search out organic foods...

snowcap007

Really confused as to why the definition is helpful to the argument. Could someone parse this out for me please?

AllDeerWearFear

First off, what is the question asking us to do? It is asking us to describe the method of argumentation. Your confusion as to "why the definition is helpful to the argument" is already veering off course. We aren't looking for an answer that helps the argument, but rather one that describes what is already happening.

If the argument is not intuitive, then the best bet is to break it down to its conclusion and premises. The conclusion is that "It is not reasonable to search out "organic" foods - those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals - as the only natural foods". How does the argument arrive at this conclusion? Well, it contends that even synthetic chemicals, when transformed by plants, will become compounds that are just as natural as those taken up in soil without synthetic chemicals. The argument redefines "natural" as encompassing both organic and non-organic foods, thus supporting it's conclusion - which is exactly what answer choice A states.

Out of curiosity, which answer choice did you choose?

snowcap007

@AllDeerWearFear

Thanks for your response!

I know that this isn’t a strengthening question…I should have specified my question before, sorry! In my description above, I was referring to answer choice A, which states that the argument proceeds by “redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument.” My question is: How is this redefining of “natural” favorable? And upon extension, when does the argument actually do this? Is this something that happens in the premises?

I chose answer choice B originally, but only because I had eliminated A right off the bat and saw clear flaws with all of the other answer choices. I see why B is clearly flawed and I saw it as such even when I chose it, but I couldn’t do much with this question under timed conditions.