Application: Crackly Crisps need not be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients, since most consumers of Crackly Crisps would not care if they discovered that fact.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that Crackly Crisps do not need to be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients. This is based on a principle: food products should be labeled as containing ingredients that would upset most consumers of that product. We also know that genetically engineered ingredients would upset most consumers of Crackly Crisps.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. According to the principle, an ingredient upsetting consumers of a product is a sufficient condition to label the product as containing that ingredient. However, the application treats upsetting consumers as a necessary condition.
The genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may not upset the consumers, but that doesn’t guarantee that they need not be labeled.
The genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may not upset the consumers, but that doesn’t guarantee that they need not be labeled.
A
fails to address the possibility that consumers of a specific food may not be representative of consumers of food in general
Only the consumers of a specific food product are relevant for the principle given in the argument. The argument just doesn’t make any claims about consumers of food in general, only the consumers of Crackly Crisps.
B
fails to address the possibility that the genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may have been proven safe for human consumption
It’s irrelevant to the argument whether a product’s ingredients are safe for human consumption, only whether most consumers of the product would be upset to learn that those ingredients are included in the product.
C
implicitly makes use of a value judgment that is incompatible with the principle being applied
The argument doesn’t make any value judgments about genetically engineered ingredients, product labeling, or anything else relevant.
D
takes for granted that if most consumers of a product would buy it even if they knew several of the ingredients in it, then they would buy the product even if they knew all the ingredients in it
The argument doesn’t make this claim. It also never implies that this is the case.
E
confuses a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions
The argument treats a sufficient condition—an ingredient upsetting most consumers of a product—as if it were a necessary condition for labeling a product as containing that ingredient. The absence of a sufficient condition doesn’t guarantee that the product need not be labeled.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the voluntary garbage-sorting system should be retained. This is because the alternative, a mandatory garbage-sorting system, would foster resentment. In turn, many people would refuse to sort their garbage at all.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is a concession the editorialist makes about an alternative to the practice she recommends. It’s true that the town would spend less under a mandatory sorting system, but the editorialist suggests there are other things to consider.
A
It is a claim that the editorial is trying to show is false.
The editorialist concedes that the town wouldn’t have to spend as much under a mandatory system. He simply believes there are reasons to retain the current system.
B
It is a fact granted by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative to the practice that the editorial defends as preferable.
The editorialist agrees that the town wouldn’t have to spend as much under a mandatory system, which certainly supports installing such a system. Still, the editorialist defends the current system as a better option.
C
It is an example of a difficulty facing the claim that the editorial is attempting to refute.
The editorialist isn’t refuting a claim. Instead, he’s recommending one of two options.
D
It is a premise that the editorial’s argument relies on in reaching its conclusion.
The fact that a mandatory system would be less expensive doesn’t support the editorialist’s argument. It’s a fact he concedes about one option while arguing for the other.
E
It is the conclusion that the editorial’s argument purports to establish.
The editorialist doesn’t try to support the claim that a mandatory system would cost less. He argues instead for retaining a voluntary system.