PT11.S2.Q08 - our nation is becoming too averse to risk

Seriousbird

So, I'm drilling Method of Reasoning questions and this is a question I got wrong.

I think I understand why A-D are wrong, but I don't understand why E is correct.

A) The two individuals only discuss avoidable risks
Not having a reference to context is not the issue, the situations discussed are clearly referred
appropriately
C) There isn't confusion the risk is clear
D) This is the answer choice I chose bc I was so confused with the answer choices, anyhow upon blind review I said precision is new information

If someone can tell me if my reasoning seems ok and why E is correct, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks in advance!

lady macbeth

The correct answer is actually choice B. I am also having trouble with method of reasoning questions, but got this one right for some reason. I kept choice C as a contenders while answering this, but ultimately chose B.

I chose B because speaker S says "our nation is becoming too averse to risk." Then goes on to say that we boycott any food reported to contain toxins, even if minimal. What T is essentially saying in response is that even though a person has an aversion from minimally toxin foods, this person may do other risky things––thus, you cannot say they are becoming too averse to risk just because of the food they eat.

I did not choose choice C because neither of the speakers mention risk containing blurred lines or whatever.

Though choice E highlights "perceived probably benefit," which is the "might be minimal" risk––Speaker T doesn't mention any perceived probably benefit nor minimal risk. Speaker T instead contextualizes actions and food.

Seriousbird

This is so great! Thank you. At first I did not understand the explanation, then I left it alone, reviewed a few more questions and went back to it. It makes so much more sense, answer choice E and B.

Answer choice B has T putting the risk in context whereas S is only talking about risk and its action.

Thanks again!