Q16 - It is not reasonable to

[ebrickm2]

I know that the term is redefined, I could just feel it, but I don't know by what means it was done...last question for the day, promise!

[bbirdwell]

What term do you think is being referred to? Take a look at the argument. What term plays an important role in the conclusion and the evidence, and appears multiple times?

[tzyc]

Is it "natural"?
Could you explain (E)?
Thank you

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Tz_strawberry!

"Natural" is indeed the redefined term. Initially, the argument discusses plant naturalness in terms of plant organicness_ i.e. whether or not plants are grown with chemicals. The argument then defines plant naturalness in terms of whether or not the molecular compounds produced by plants are natural. This is a jump! Growing methods and molecular compounds are distinct angles from which to examine plant naturalness.

(A) discusses this redefinition, and is the correct answer.
(B) is out of scope; benefit is not discussed.
(C) is out of scope; authority and the scientific method are not discussed.
(D) is tempting, but only because it is confusing. The argument never lays out necessary conditions for calling a plant "organic," so this can’t be right.
(E) is confusingly worded. It basically says that the argument takes evidence offered in supported of the "organic=natural" argument and reinterprets it. But no actual evidence is ever offered in support of the "organic=natural" argument. If this answer choice were correct, the main argument would have nothing to reinterpret. (E) is out.

[coco.wu1993]

I chose E because I think the argument organic=natural is supported by the fact that the organic are grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. The author reinterprets this and shows that using synthetic chemicals is consistent with being natural. Basically what E says. Any thought?

[maryadkins]

What is the evidence offered in support of organic = natural?

That's the problem. There isn't any. The information about the plant taking up what's in the soil around it is not offered in support of organic = natural. That would have to be true for us even to GET to the reinterpretation question.

The part you're talking about is really just the definition of "organic." And it isn't reinterpreted. Think about it—the person arguing just provides new information to put that definition in context. He or she doesn't actually reinterpret what organic food IS. Organic food is the same. It's NATURAL food is different.

Agree that (E) is confusing though!