Legislator: To keep our food

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear Impact4% picked this

   The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at

   Maybe we could try to use this to be like, "Your plan is too risky! What if we set the allowable level where adults can handle it but kids can't?" But why would we assume that? The commentator could be saying, "If 50mg is the level that leads to cancer in children then we set the allowable level below that".

   4%
2. B

   Correct87% picked this

   Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any

   Why this is right

   This objection gives us way to say, "even if we follow your PLAN, it won't achieve the GOAL of avoiding cancer". After all, yes each product may have a tolerably small amount of the carcinogenic additives, but if consumers end up using a handful of these products at the same time, then they may well exceed the threshold where these chemicals start to become problematic.

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

   87%
3. C

   No Impact2% picked this

   The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of

   This doesn't address any of the commentator's ideas or concerns. She would say, "Right, I am opposed to you banning the deliberate addition of these chemicals. I think companies should be allowed to deliberately add trace amounts of them, as long as it stays below the threshold of where the chemical becomes problematic."

   2%
4. D

   No Impact4% picked this

   For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at

   This is a very weak idea (Some = at least one), so it's unlikely to be correct on Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox. If there's a chemical that starts to be carcinogenic before it even is useful to the company using it, then the company presumably wouldn't use that chemical. Following the commentator's suggestion, there would be a maximum allowable limit and they would hit that limit before the additive was doing anything for their product, so they would just no bother using it.

   4%
5. E

   No Impact3% picked this

   All food additives have substitutes that can be used in

   This might feel independently like it helps the legislator argue for a ban on these additives (after all, it's no big inconvenience to ban certain additives if they all have substitutes!) But it doesn't have anything to do with logically countering the commentator's ideas or her suggested alternative plan.

   3%