Self-study
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████
█████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ █████████ █ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █ ████ ████████ ████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The proponent argues in favor of gamma ray irradiation of food by pointing out its benefits: it keeps food from spoiling, and kills Salmonella in contaminated poultry, all while leaving no traces of radiation and causing no significant loss of vitamins. The opponent counters this argument by mentioning a significant disadvantage of irradiation: it does not kill botulism bacteria, and in fact kills bacteria that produce bad smells that warn consumers about botulism. The opponent adds that an alternative method, a safe chemical dip, kills both Salmonella and botulism, thus providing at least one of the benefits of irradiation — killing Salmonella — without the same disadvantage.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The opponent responds to the proponent's emphasis on irradiation's benefits by pointing out a significant disadvantage of irradiation: it fails to kill botulism bacteria, but kills bacteria that can warn consumers of botulism. The opponent then points out that another method — the chemical dip — provides at least one of irradiation's benefits, killing Salmonella, while also killing botulism and so avoiding the same disadvantage.
5.
The opponent's argument proceeds by
a
isolating an ambiguity ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████
The opponent does not claim that any of the proponent's terms are ambiguous.
b
showing that claims ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █ ██████████████████
The proponent’s argument is not self-contradictory, nor does the opponent claim it is. The opponent addresses the proponent’s argument by presenting an additional consideration about irradiation that the proponent does not mention, and proposing an alternative method to irradiation.
c
establishing that undesirable ████████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
This might be tempting because the opponent certainly discusses undesirable consequences of the irradiation process. But he does not mention any undesirable consequences of the chemical dip method, which is the only other remedy proposed in the stimulus. So it's not true that the opponent claims undesirable consequences will result from adopting "either one" of the two remedies.
d
shifting perspective from ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████
The opponent does not say anything about safety with respect to producers. Both the proponent and the opponent focus on risks with regard to consumers.
e
pointing out an ███████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ █ ██████████ ████████████
This is correct. The proponent claims that irradiation has the advantage of killing Salmonella. The opponent points out that irradiation also brings a significant disadvantage — killing the bacteria that warn of botulism, but not killing botulism bacteria themselves — and suggests an alternative method, a chemical dip that kills both Salmonella and botulism.