Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
Summarize Argument
The proponent concludes that there’s no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. As support, he gives four claims:
(1) Irradiation prevents food from spoiling before reaching stores.
(2) It leaves behind no radiation.
(3) Vitamin loss from irradiation and from cooking are the same.
(4) It kills harmful Salmonella bacteria.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Per the question stem, we need to find the gap between claim (3) above and the conclusion that irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional or safety reasons.
The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same amount of vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons. But what if you cook irradiated food? Wouldn’t it have twice as much vitamin loss? Or if you don’t cook it, wouldn’t it still have more vitamin loss than non-irradiated raw food?
A
After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.
This is an issue with consumers’ storage practices, not with irradiation. Also, the author only claims that irradiation prevents food from spoiling before it reaches stores. He doesn’t say anything about it spoiling after it’s purchased. (A) also fails to address vitamin loss.
B
Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.
The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutrition reasons. But if irradiated foods are cooked, they lose twice the vitamins. And if eaten raw, they’ve already lost more vitamins than other raw food.
C
Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.
This may be true, but the proponent’s conclusion addresses safety and nutrition. Vitamin loss is surely included in nutrition.
D
Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.
This may be true, but the argument just addresses vitamin loss due to irradiation. Even if one can still take vitamin supplements, it doesn’t impact the argument that irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons because it causes the same vitamin loss as cooking.
E
That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.
This may be true, but it doesn't address vitamin loss, nor does it impact the argument. The argument is just about whether or not there’s grounds to reject irradiation. It doesn’t matter who benefits from the food not spoiling.
Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the proponent’s claim that there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety, the opponent states irradiation does not kill botulism bacteria but kills bacteria that warn consumers of botulism. Moreover, a safe chemical drip easily kills salmonella and the bacteria that causes botulism.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The opponent counters the position held by the proponent. He does this by suggesting an alternative method. A safe chemical drip would achieve the benefit of killing salmonella and does not fail to kill botulism bacteria.
A
isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
There is no ambiguity in the proponent’s argument. The opponent does not discuss two or more interpretations of a term the proponent uses in their argument.
B
showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
The proponent’s argument does not result in a self-contradiction. The opponent addresses the proponent’s argument by presenting an additional consideration the proponent fails to account for.
C
establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
The opponent does not discuss any undesirable consequences of the chemical drip method. He only addresses undesirable consequences resulting from the irradiation method.
D
shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
The opponent does not address safety with response to producers. His claims are only in the perspective of safety with respect to consumers.
E
pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
The advantage claimed by the proponent is the advantage of killing salmonella. The disadvantage is the irradiation method kills bacteria that warn of botulism without actually killing botulism. The alternative way the opponent proposes is the safe chemical drip method.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author argues that stage directions in operas can be reflected in their music. In support, we get an example: Mozart began some opera scenes with music that sounded like the squeaking of changing scenery. This establishes the sub-conclusion that Mozart intended the music to sound like the stage direction to change scenery, which leads to another sub-conclusion that at least one stage direction can be reflected in music. The author uses this to conclude that other stage directions can also be reflected.
Identify Argument Part
The statement about scenes in Mozart’s operas opening with music that sounds like the squeaking of changing scenery supports both of the sub-conclusions (Mozart’s intention and music reflecting a stage direction), and through them the main conclusion (music can reflect several stage directions).
A
a change of scenery is the stage direction most frequently reflected in an opera’s music
The statement about Mozart opening scenes with squeaky music does not support the claim that scenery changes are the most frequent stage direction, it’s unrelated. The latter claim isn’t supported by anything, it’s just stated as a fact.
B
an opera’s stage directions are never reflected in its music
Nothing in the argument supports the claim that stage directions are never reflected in opera music. That’s the claim the critics make, and the author’s goal is to prove them wrong.
C
an opera’s music can have an effect on the opera’s stage directions
The author never claims that an opera’s music can impact the stage directions. There’s no indication that the music can change what the stage directions are or how they’re carried out.
D
a variety of stage directions can be reflected in an opera’s music
This is the main conclusion, and it is supported by the claim statement about Mozart opening scenes with squeaky music. The support is offered through a chain of sub-conclusions.
E
the most frequent relation between an opera’s music and its stage directions is one of musical imitation of the sounds that occur when a direction is carried out
The author never claims that this is the most frequent relationship between music and stage directions. It’s offered as a single example, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t others.
Summary
In a recession, decreases in consumer spending causes some businesses to lay off workers or close. Workers who are laid off usually cannot find new jobs. This results in an increase of the total number of people who are jobless. Recovery from a recession involves an increase of consumer spending and increased business activity that requires more workers. However, businesspeople are not confident with the economy after a recession and as a result are slow to hire more workers.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes when an economy recovers from a recession, the number of people who are jobless does not immediately decrease.
A
Recessions are usually caused by a decrease in businesspeople’s confidence in the economy.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what factors cause an economy to enter into a recession. From the stimulus, we only know what results from an economy already in a recession.
B
Governmental intervention is required in order for an economy to recover from a recession.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if government intervention is required for an economy to recover. We only know what factors define an economy’s recovery from a recession.
C
Employees of businesses that close during a recession make up the majority of the workers who lose their jobs during that recession.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if workers that are laid off make up the majority of jobless people. We only know from the stimulus that businesses laying off workers causes the total number of jobless people to increase.
D
Sometimes recovery from a recession does not promptly result in a decrease in the number of people who are jobless.
This answer is strongly supported. Since businesspeople delay hiring for as long as possible, we know that there is not an immediate decrease in the total number of people who are jobless.
E
Workers who lose their jobs during a recession are likely to get equally good jobs when the economy recovers.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what types of jobs workers are likely to find when an economy recovers from a recession.