Q14 - A cup of raw milk

[mkeat_theraptor]

I didn't think any of choices were particularly good answers.

The only way I can think to support E is that if a microwave creates areas of hotter than average liquid - then it is possible that heat is responsible for degrading lysozyme, not necessarily the microwave. But ... how do you know? Maybe only microwaves creates hotter than average pockets, and conventional methods do not... Then wouldn't E strengthen argument (microwaves responsible) rather than weaken (microwaves responsible)? Not to mention that this answer choice doesn't mention the enzymes at all.

Can someone please justify this CR?

[stackoutawinner]

I can definitely help you with this one.

This is a causal argument. The proposition is that microwaves cause the destruction of the enzyme instead of heat. To prove this conclusion, the premise given is that when heated conventionally the enzyme remains and when heated in a microwave it's destroyed.

Seems pretty straight forward, right?

Except if you were to disagree, then you'd have to resolve the apparent paradox.

Now, in a weaken argument, you can either supply a counter premise or you can attack an assumption.

In a causal argument, your counter premise is going to be the likely correct answer. The reason is because it will introduce an alternate cause.

In our case, the counter premise actually resloves the apparent paradox (a paradox that would exist if you plainly disagreed with the argument without further evidence).

Answer choice A seems to reinforce the argument by confirming that heating in the microwave can destroy nearly all traces of the enzyme.

Answer B tells us that we can replace destroyed enzymes. It has no relevance to the argument itself

Answer C speaks to heating techniques, but only conventional heating techniques. It doesn't deal with the argument.

Answer D talks about lack of taste difference between the two heating styles but doesn't address the issue of enzymes

Answer E says that if we heat liquid in a microwave, it creates pockets hotter than the overall temperature. If this were true, then it could mean that the enzyme is destroyed within these pockets resulting in a reduction of enzymes. In this case, it would be the excess heat causing the destruction and not the microwaves. The microwaves were the means to the heat. This resolves the apparent discrepency and would weaken the argument by illustrating the possibility that heat was the cause of the enzyme reduction and not the microwave like the conclusion dictates.

In these weaken a causal argument, you don't have to prove the alternate cause, you only have to demonstrate a possible alternative to the conclusion. In this case, the heat is what's doing it, not the microwave itself

[mkeat_theraptor]

Ahh...I think the term "microwaves" is ambiguous and causes confusion! Too bad this wasn't a flaw in the argument...

I was thinking of microwaves - the machine - not microwaves the electromagnetic waves...

So when they suggested that these pockets of hotter than average liquid were found in microwaves...I thought this strengthened the argument because you are only told thay they occur in microwaves, not other conventional heating sources. Now I see that they meant that if the microwaves (EMW) cauesd the degradation of enyzme, the enzyme would be equally affected at any temperature, including these hot pockets...

TY.

[dan]

14. (E)
Question Type: Weaken the Conclusion
The author concludes that microwaves, not heat itself, destroy substance X. To weaken this argument, we’d want to show that in fact heat could play a role, or, alternatively, we’d want to show that microwaves do not play a role aside from providing heat. The only answer that is relevant to the conclusion is answer choice (E). If microwaves create small heat pockets in the liquid that rise to temperatures much higher than the temperature of the overall liquid, then it’s possible that it’s actually these high heat pockets that destroy the substance instead of the microwaves. This would explain why the 50 degree heat from a conventional source destroyed almost none of the substance but that the same 50 degree overall heat in a microwave destroyed half of the substance.

(A) is irrelevant.
(B) is out of scope. It doesn’t matter if the destroyed enzymes can be replaced.
(C) is out of scope. It compares the rate at which the liquid is heated between two conventional sources of heat. We’re interested in the difference between a conventional source and microwaves.
(D) is out of scope (taste?).

https://sas.elluminate.com/p.jnlp?psid= ... cr&sid=329

[shaynfernandez]

Chose this answer but it isn't ideal. I could also see this strengthen the argument because the microwave causes those small zones of hotter temperature. But it does weaken the truth of the premise by showing that the temperatures were perhaps not both at 50 degrees Celsius.

Any thoughts?

[ahn2014]

I chose the answer (A) due to following reason even though I initially thought it might strengthen the argument.

In 50 degrees in Celsius, the microwave destroys half.
In 100 degrees in Celsius, it destroys nearly all.

From this, we can say not only microwave but also heat can destroy the enzyme(recall that in both cases, a microwave is used, and the magnitude of result is different.) .


Can anyone tell me in which part I misunderstood?

Thank you

[stacksdoe]

Thank you

First and foremost ahn2014,
Your initial inclination was correct, answer choice (A) does in fact strengthen the argument, in other words,
it contradicts exactly what the question stem calls for. Notice in your assessment you state that "not only microwave but also
heat can destroy the enzyme". I'm not sure how you concluded that from your two examples but we need a situation (premise)
that allows us another possible reason for the destruction of the enzymes instead of just microwaves. Answer choice (A) does not do that
in any form, in fact it tells us how to destroy more enzymes. The crux of the argument is about the destruction of the enzymes, and thats exactly what answer choice (E) attacks.
Answer choice (E) may not easily seem apparent, for whatever reason, but rephrasing it helps gain insight: heating any liquid in the microwave produces several little pockets in the said liquid, these pockets have a higher temperature of heat THAN the actually liquid will reach ( or turn out to be). In other words, it's the little pockets that destroy the enzymes. Furthermore, as dan pointed out, this answer choice explains the milk example offered in the argument.

I hope this helps a little

[SimonB205]

To me, the stimulus ending with "....but microwaves, which generate heat." offers framing suggesting that the unique heating properties of microwaves (be it pockets, or whatever) should be considered an element inherent to them. This is thus a reason to eliminate E because it in fact strengthens the argument. If the stimulus had ended at microwaves period, this would not be so.