Columnist: There are certain pesticides

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite, if anything11% picked this

   Trace amounts of some of the pesticides banned for use in the United States can be detected in the soil where they

   The fact that these pesticides we banned 30 years ago are still in the soil makes the pesticides sounds scarier, more harmful, more lasting. We want the opposite of that.

   11%
2. B

   Weak Impact32% picked this

   Most of the pesticides that are manufactured in the United States and exported are not among those banned for

   This answer has nothing to do with "this practice" from the conclusion. We're trying to find an answer that allows us to say our practice of exporting banned pesticides is not greatly increasing our health risk. This answer is saying, "well, those banned pesticides are only a minority of the pesticides we export". That helps a little, although if I were trying to argue that my liquor consumption is not greatly increasing my health risk by saying, "Most of the liquid I drink isn't liquor", that's a pretty weak defense. When you're talking about toxins / poisons, you don't need there to be a lot for it to matter. If I drop a few drops of arsenic or LSD into your pint glass of water, the fact that it's 99% water is not going to save you from the effects of the highly potent stuff I put in there. By adding that to your water, I have greatly increased your risk of a bad night. Similarly, if only 40% of the pesticides the US makes and exports are these banned ones, it could still be greatly elevating our risk from "no poison on our imported produce" to "omg, there's poison on our produce".

   32%
3. C

   Correct36% picked this

   The United States is not the only country that manufactures and exports the pesticides that are banned for

   Why this is right

   This is one of my all-time least favorite correct answers, so take my defense of it as reluctant. This is also a very weak claim. It says there's at least one other country that makes and exports these banned pesticides. The innuendo LSAC was going for is, "The US isn't greatly increasing the health risk to its consumers by exporting these banned pesticides. Sure, some of our imported food has these pesticides on them, but it's not like if we stopped exporting the pesticides that our imported food would stop having those pesticides on them. After all, (this answer says) there are other countries who are making and exporting this pesticide onto the world market." This type of objection leans heavily on the modifier "greatly" in the conclusion. By the US making and exporting these banned pesticides, thus adding a greater supply of them to the world market, we seem to definitely be increasing our risk of having them on our food. But are we greatly increasing our risk, if other countries are out making these pesticides also? This is one of the only correct answers to Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox that has language this weak: "at least one other country makes and exports this". A weak impact answer can still win the "best available answer" sweepstakes if the other answers do nothing or go the wrong way.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   36%
4. D

   Irrelevant Comparison11% picked this

   The banned pesticides pose a greater risk to people in the countries in which they are used

   The conclusion isn't comparing the risk to US consumers with the risk to other people in the world. It's comparing the risk to US consumers in a world where we do make and export these banned pesticides to the risk to US consumers in a world where we don't make and export them.

   11%
5. E

   Unclear Impact10% picked this

   There are many pesticides that are banned for use in other countries that are not banned for use

   I find this almost as compelling as the correct answer (because I don't find the correct answer compelling). This answer presents some innuendo that might lead us to counterargue, "Just because the US bans these pesticides doesn't mean they're harmful pesticides. The choice to ban or not ban a pesticide can be complex or arbitrary. It doesn't have to indicate a fear of the health risks posed by that pesticide. After all, the US tolerates a lot of pesticides that are banned in other countries." I'm adding a lot to make that story work. The fact that other countries ban stuff that we don't isn't something with a clear takeaway. Meanwhile, with the correct answer, it's clear that if some other countries make and export the banned pesticide, then the US would still be at risk of importing food with this pesticide on it, even if the US were to stop making and exporting the banned pesticides.

   10%