PT158 S3 Q24 ExplanationScientist: Some consumer groups claim

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal5% picked this

   The genetically engineered plants that have been developed so far have few advantages over plants that

   Whether genetically engineered plants have advantages over natural ones is irrelevant to the health risk question. The argument is about whether modified foods pose health risks, not about whether they offer benefits. Even if the modifications provide no advantages, that does not make them risky. And even if they provide enormous advantages, that does not make them safe. Benefits and risks are independent considerations. This answer addresses the value proposition of genetic engineering, not its safety profile. To weaken the scientist's argument about minimal risk, we need evidence that the modification COULD cause harm, not evidence about whether it provides benefits.

   5%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   Whatever health risks there are in food from genetically altered plants may be somewhat reduced by other factors such as enrichment of

   Saying that health risks may be "somewhat reduced by cooking" does not weaken the claim that the risks are minimal. If anything, it concedes that risks exist (they can be reduced) while offering a partial mitigation. But the scientist's argument is that the risks are minimal in the first place because the genetic change is so small. This answer does not address whether that reasoning is sound — it just offers a separate consideration about cooking that, if anything, suggests the risks are manageable rather than challenging whether they exist. To weaken the argument, we need evidence that small genetic changes CAN produce significant effects.

   4%
3. C

   No Impact11% picked this

   Scientists have yet to determine, for each characteristic of some plants and animals used for food, the precise location of the

   The fact that scientists have not yet identified which genes control each characteristic does not weaken the argument. If anything, it introduces uncertainty that could cut either way — maybe the changed genes are important, maybe they are not. Uncertainty about which genes control what does not establish that a single-gene change CAN produce significant harmful effects. To weaken the argument, we need affirmative evidence that small genetic changes can have outsized impacts, not merely an admission that we do not fully understand the genome. General scientific uncertainty does not specifically challenge the proportionality assumption.

   11%
4. D

   Correct78% picked this

   There are plants that are known to be toxic to some animals and whose toxicity is known to be affected by the

   Why this is right

   This answer directly demolishes the scientist's proportionality assumption. The scientist argues that changing one gene in 750,000 is so slight it cannot have significant effects. This answer provides a concrete counterexample: some plants are known to be toxic, and their toxicity is known to result from a single gene. This proves that one gene — exactly the proportion of change the scientist dismisses as insignificant — can control a critically important trait like toxicity. If a single gene can make a plant toxic, then changing a single gene in a food plant could potentially make it toxic as well. The scientist's reasoning that "the change is too small to matter" collapses in the face of evidence that single genes can control consequential biological functions. The proportion of genetic material changed is irrelevant; what matters is the function of the specific gene that was altered.

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

   78%
5. E

   No Impact2% picked this

   Research has shown that those consumers who are most strongly opposed to genetically altered foods tend to be

   What consumers opposed to genetic engineering know about genetic science has no bearing on whether the scientist's argument is logically sound. The scientist's claim is about the actual risk level of genetically modified food, not about what opponents know or do not know. Even if every opponent were scientifically illiterate, the argument could still be flawed. And even if every opponent were a geneticist, the argument could still be sound. The knowledge level of the opposition is irrelevant to whether the proportionality reasoning holds. This is an ad hominem consideration — attacking the credentials of those who disagree rather than engaging with the substantive question of risk.

   2%