Bevex, an artificial sweetener used

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite (if anything)1% picked this

   Cancer from carcinogenic substances develops more slowly in mice than it

   This makes it sound like humans are more sensitive to carcinogens than mice are, which actually weakens the argument. The author is assuming that the amount a human would have to ingest to be harmed is at least as great as the amount a mouse had to ingest to be harmed, and this answer actually undermines that assumption.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: Other Food Additives2% picked this

   If all food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, some would be found to

   The carcinogenic properties of other food additives for mice is irrelevant to this specific argument about Bevex.

   2%
3. C

   Correct94% picked this

   People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex- sweetened soda

   Why this is right

   If we negated this and said, "People do drink 25 or more cans a day," the conclusion would fall apart because it means they are at risk of ingesting harmful levels of Bevex, much like the mice were exposed to in the studies. This would allow us to argue that Bevex isn't safe for people. The author presented a rule, "If you're drinking less than 25 cans per day, then you're not ingesting an amount equivalent to the harmful amount we fed the mice." But the author never triggered this conditional by asserting, "And people definitely drink less than 25 cans per day".

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

   94%
4. D

   Out of Scope: Health Benefits1% picked this

   People can obtain important health benefits by controlling their weight through the use of artificially

   Whether Bevex could have health benefits through weight control is completely beyond the scope of what the author is trying to prove. She is merely trying to convince us it's safe, i.e. not-harmful. She isn't trying to convince us it's beneficial.

   1%
5. E

   Irrelevant Quality3% picked this

   Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex

   This is trying to bait people into inferring something from a premise. The author referred to "the relevant studies", so this answer is suggesting that this implies that there were "irrelevant studies" as well. This has nothing to do with our conclusion. By "relevant studies", the author means "in the studies where we fed Bevex to mice". If there were other studies done on Bevex, does it make any difference to the author whether those studies were or weren't relevant to people? No.

   3%