Summarize Argument
The author concludes that nutrition educated was dangerous to health. She provides no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s some reason why nutrition education was dangerous to health. This likely has to do with the division of foods into the four food groups.
A
The division into four groups gave the impression that an equal amount of each should be consumed, but milk and meat tend to contain fats that promote heart disease and cancer and should be eaten in lesser amounts.
Not all foods should be consumed in equal amounts, yet the “four food groups” idea suggested just this. Thus, nutrition education was dangerous to health.
B
The omission of fish, which contains beneficial oils, from the names of groups in the list gave the erroneous impression that it is less healthy as a food than is red meat.
The food groups omitted foods that were actually healthy. That’s not good for health.
C
A healthy diet should include the consumption of several different fruits and vegetables daily, but the recommendation was often interpreted as satisfied by the consumption of a single serving of a fruit or vegetable.
Healthy diets have a mix of fruits and vegetables, but the four food groups suggested simply eating a couple carrots every day would cut it. That’s not the case.
D
The recommendation that some food from the fruit and vegetable group be consumed daily constituted a reminder not to neglect this group, which provides needed vitamins, minerals, and fiber.
Here’s a benefit of the food guide. We’re looking for the opposite.
E
Encouraging the daily consumption of some product from each of the four food groups gave the impression that eating in that manner is sufficient for a healthy diet, but eating in that manner is consistent with the overconsumption of sweets and fats.
The “four food groups” idea gave the impression that a healthy diet is simply a matter of eating dairy, meat, fruits, and grains. Such diets are in fact often terrible.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that, contrary to the recent article, the rate of animal extinctions is indeed accelerating. She supports this hypothesis with the observation that more fish species have gone extinct since 1950 than went extinct between 1900-1950.
Notable Assumptions
The author takes a very small sample—the number of fish extinctions in each of two time periods—and assumes that they accurately reflect a trend toward increasing extinctions of animals in general. This means she assumes that fish extinctions weren’t significantly higher prior to 1900, and also that the rate of extinction hasn’t now started to slow down. She also assumes that the rate of fish extinctions accurately represents what’s happening with other animal species more broadly.
A
Were the fish species and subspecies that became extinct unrepresentative of animal species in general with regard to their pattern of extinction?
If yes, then there’s no reason to conclude that the overall rate of animal extinctions is increasing. If no, then the data on fish suggest more strongly that extinction is accelerating for other animals, too.
B
How numerous were the populations in 1950 of the species and subspecies of North American fishes that have become extinct since 1950?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with the population dynamics of any individual species. The argument is focused solely on whether or not populations have gone completely extinct, and how the total number of extinctions is changing over time.
C
Did any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century originate in regions outside of North America?
Irrelevant—the origins of those fishes have no bearing on the extinction numbers being reported.
D
What proportion of North American fish species and subspecies whose populations were endangered in 1950 are now thriving?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with the population dynamics of any individual species. The argument is focused solely on whether or not populations have gone extinct, and how the number of extinctions is changing over time.
E
Were any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century commercially important?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with which fish species went extinct or what those species might have been used for. The argument is focused solely on the number of extinctions and how that number is changing over time.