Q20 - Of the various food containers

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct, we definitely know at least SOMETHING about containers other than egg cartons, but nothing as it relates to whether they can be safely made.

There are multiple problems with (A), so we needn't single out one as THE problem.

We only discuss how easy containers are to make, not whether they can be safely made.

Egg cartons are "AMONG the easiest" containers to make, which indicates that there are other types of containers that are basically as easy to make as egg cartons. (So there's a false dichotomy of egg cartons vs. EVERYTHING ELSE)

Technically, we could get rid of (A) because it's speaking about being "thoroughly cleaned" in absolute terms when the information only discussed it in relative terms. All we know is that egg cartons need to be LESS thoroughly cleaned than other containers. But we never talk about anything that ISN'T thoroughly cleaned.

I agree that "has not" and "need not" aren't the same. However, this paragraph implies that some containers NEED to be more thoroughly cleaned when made into food containers. Furthermore, the first sentence implies that various food containers ARE made. Hence, we know that these food containers that ARE made and that NEED to be thoroughly cleaned when made into containers must therefore HAVE been thoroughly cleaned. So I actually don't think that's a meaningful problem with (A), but it's a good nuance to investigate.

(B) Nothing in the info discusses whether something CAN / CANNOT be packaged.

(C) The "main reason" is very extreme and "residual food" is out of scope. This answer makes total common sense, but there is no information in the stimulus to support it.

(D) "most" is very extreme and there's no way to use the information to prove that MOST egg cartons are from recycled Styrofoam.

(E) "Not all A are B" phrasings are common among correct answers. You should get into the habit of always rephrasing them mentally as "Some A are Not-B".

What (E) really offers us is, "some types of food containers made of recycled Styrofoam are NOT effectively prevented from coming into contact with the food inside"

Super safe language ... very supportable ... if what makes egg cartons SPECIAL or DIFFERENT from other recycled styrofoam containers is the fact that egg shells keep the food from touching the styrofoam, then it must be that normally the food WOULD touch the styrofoam.

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[sunhwa2881]

I was able to eliminate answer choices A, B, C and D. However, I'm not sure why choice E is correct.

[bbirdwell]

This is a great problem. Try thinking about it this way:

The argument states that the used styrofoam that will be made into egg cartons need not be as thoroughly cleansed as when made into other food containers.

Why is this? What's so special about egg cartons? Well, look at the key word "because," which supports the statement above. Egg cartons don't have to be washed because eggs keep the food to be consumed from touching the styrofoam.

What does this imply? That there are types of styrofoam out there that DO need to be washed thoroughly because the food to be consumed DOES touch the styrofoam.

[jklein1233]

Hi, I'm still a but confused about why this makes answer choice E something that can be inferred from the information provided. Just because certain recycled styrofoam containers do need to be washed that doesn't mean that all of these containers cannot be effectively prevented from coming into contact with the food they will or do contain. These containers could potentially all be washed adequately which would effectively prevent them from coming into contact with the consumable food they hold, thus making E implausible. The only way I could see answer choice E working here is if we assume (and this is quite a significant assumption) that we're analyzing the effectiveness of pre-washed styrofoam containers, in which case it wouldn't make sense that egg cartons even meet this standard because they too need to be washed to some degree.

Am I missing something here or is this question just poorly structured?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

I'm afraid that the question is not poorly structured

Here is is in a nut(egg?)shell:

1. Egg shells keep the food (inside of the egg) from touching the styrofoam.
2. For this reason, styrofoam used for egg cartons doesn't have to be cleaned as well as styrofoam used for other foods.

What we can infer from the second statement is that at least some of the styrofoam used for other foods must be washed more than styrofoam used for egg cartons.

There may be myriad reasons for this, but at least one of the reasons, in at least some of the cases, must be that, unlike eggs, sometimes the edible part of the food touches the carton.

You might also ballpark this in conditional form:
food doesn't touch carton (eggs) --> not washed as much
washed more --> food touches carton (not eggs)

These containers could potentially all be washed adequately which would effectively prevent them from coming into contact with the consumable food they hold

This is a misunderstanding of the statement. Washing the containers doesn't prevent them from touching things. It's the other way around -- whether or not they touch things determines how much they need to be washed.

[shirando21]

Why can't A be correct? is it because the argument only said "easiest" which is not a match of safest?

[bbirdwell]

Right. Also, this is a typical wrong answer on inference questions: it has the telltale phrase "other than egg cartons," and we don't anything about other containers at all.

Second, as you pointed out the argument says "among the easiest." Note that this doesn't make it the EASIEST. So even if you substituted "ease" for "safety" in choice (A), it would be still be wrong.

[coco.wu1993]

it has the telltale phrase "other than egg cartons," and we don't anything about other containers at all.

But the stimulus actually says egg cartons need not be as thoroughly cleaned as other food containers. Isn't A wrong because it says "has not been cleaned"? "Has not been " doesn't equal to "need not be".