LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ptraye
-
Thanks Received: 5
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 103
- Joined: February 01st, 2012
Q5 - Proponent: Irradiation of food
Can someone explain this question? I do not understand how (E) the opponent points "out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent."
-
- austindyoung
-
Thanks Received: 22
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 75
- Joined: July 05th, 2012
Re: Q5 - Proponent: Irradiation of food
Ooook. So, I got this wrong wrong at first, and that is because I also didn't see any obvious "alternative way." I ended up between (C) and (E) and reluctantly choose (C) because I didn't understand (E). Dumb, because I saw a problem with (C), which I'll explain below.
So, here's how I ended up looking at it; hope it helps:
(A) is wrong because there is no ambiguity in what the Proponent says; i.e., there is no equivocation of a term or concept- it's straightforward. So, the Opponent, when viewing their argument, does not isolate an ambiguity as (1) is relevant upon examination of Opp's argument and (2) because there is no ambiguity in Prop's argument to isolate. Look at the critical terms ("irradiation," "radiation," "nutrition," "safety," and whatever other ones there are- no ambiguity there).
(B) The Prop's claim contradicts the Opponent's claim, however there is no internal contradiction present in Prop's argument. The Opp argues that the Prop's irradiation suggestion would lead to undesirable consequences as related to safety (nutrition is not addressed) and gives other consequences of irradiation evidence to support this. The use of the Prop of potential bad or incomplete evidence is not a flaw of self-contradiction.
(C) Two remedies? So, I thought it was weird that they were called "remedies," (remedies to what?) and that there were two. First, there is not a problem being remedied, there is simply a suggestion presented by the Prop. Maybe there are no foods that are being spoiled before they reach consumers in food stores- maybe this is being suggested because it is cheaper. That's the danger with assuming too much and assuming incorrectly.
The Prop concludes "there is no reason to reject irradiation" and obviously we see that the Opp (clever name, eh?) disagrees with this. That's why this answer is tricky- the first half of it is awesome- and correct- the second part, not so much. However, "establishing" may be too strong IMO.
(D) No. The discussion between the two speakers does not even mention "producers." This should quickly be eliminated. Just for fun: the only hint of pre-consumer talk between the two is when the Prop states, "keep it from spoiling before it reaches consumer." Nevertheless, the Opp makes no shift whatsoever to focusing on the producer.
(E) Ah, here we go. If, by POE we haven't been able to get to this answer, well it needs to be evaluated (should be anyway). So, this is tricky because the stem states, "The argument proceeds by:" and then for (E) it starts out by stating "pointing out an alternative" while this doesn't occur until the end of the Opp's argument.
The "alternative way" is the "safe" (loophole closer) chemical dip. The advantage claimed by the Proponent is the advantage dealing with safety- in fact there is another advantage in that Salmonella is killed- which is especially bad in poultry. The Opponent states that chemical dip would be better- and it even kills botulism. All around it's safer.
I think this is also hard because we might think, "Well, the Opponent is only addressing poultry concerning the chemical dip." Well, we don't know that the dip could only be used for poultry- the argument doesn't state that. Furthermore, even if this were the case (E) would still be correct because the Opponent would have still addressed "an alternative way of obtaining an [singular] advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage" that specific [singular] advantage dealing with the poultry.
Dang that was long. If any one thinks I screwed up or missed something, please feel free to correct me.
So, here's how I ended up looking at it; hope it helps:
(A) is wrong because there is no ambiguity in what the Proponent says; i.e., there is no equivocation of a term or concept- it's straightforward. So, the Opponent, when viewing their argument, does not isolate an ambiguity as (1) is relevant upon examination of Opp's argument and (2) because there is no ambiguity in Prop's argument to isolate. Look at the critical terms ("irradiation," "radiation," "nutrition," "safety," and whatever other ones there are- no ambiguity there).
(B) The Prop's claim contradicts the Opponent's claim, however there is no internal contradiction present in Prop's argument. The Opp argues that the Prop's irradiation suggestion would lead to undesirable consequences as related to safety (nutrition is not addressed) and gives other consequences of irradiation evidence to support this. The use of the Prop of potential bad or incomplete evidence is not a flaw of self-contradiction.
(C) Two remedies? So, I thought it was weird that they were called "remedies," (remedies to what?) and that there were two. First, there is not a problem being remedied, there is simply a suggestion presented by the Prop. Maybe there are no foods that are being spoiled before they reach consumers in food stores- maybe this is being suggested because it is cheaper. That's the danger with assuming too much and assuming incorrectly.
The Prop concludes "there is no reason to reject irradiation" and obviously we see that the Opp (clever name, eh?) disagrees with this. That's why this answer is tricky- the first half of it is awesome- and correct- the second part, not so much. However, "establishing" may be too strong IMO.
(D) No. The discussion between the two speakers does not even mention "producers." This should quickly be eliminated. Just for fun: the only hint of pre-consumer talk between the two is when the Prop states, "keep it from spoiling before it reaches consumer." Nevertheless, the Opp makes no shift whatsoever to focusing on the producer.
(E) Ah, here we go. If, by POE we haven't been able to get to this answer, well it needs to be evaluated (should be anyway). So, this is tricky because the stem states, "The argument proceeds by:" and then for (E) it starts out by stating "pointing out an alternative" while this doesn't occur until the end of the Opp's argument.
The "alternative way" is the "safe" (loophole closer) chemical dip. The advantage claimed by the Proponent is the advantage dealing with safety- in fact there is another advantage in that Salmonella is killed- which is especially bad in poultry. The Opponent states that chemical dip would be better- and it even kills botulism. All around it's safer.
I think this is also hard because we might think, "Well, the Opponent is only addressing poultry concerning the chemical dip." Well, we don't know that the dip could only be used for poultry- the argument doesn't state that. Furthermore, even if this were the case (E) would still be correct because the Opponent would have still addressed "an alternative way of obtaining an [singular] advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage" that specific [singular] advantage dealing with the poultry.
Dang that was long. If any one thinks I screwed up or missed something, please feel free to correct me.
2 posts Page 1 of 1