Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 1 · Question 6

Incorrect. This answer has nothing to do with vitamin loss, so it doesn't address the question stem.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
P: Irradiation with gamma rays:
(1) Leaves no radiation behind
(2) Kills Salmonella
(3) Removes the same amount of vitamins as cooking
(4) Stops food from spoiling
So there's no nutrition/safety reason to reject it.

O: It doesn't kill botulism but makes it harder for people to detect it, and there's an alternative that kills Salmonella and botulism.

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem tasks us with pointing out a flaw in the Proponent's argument, specifically with respect to vitamin losses. Isolating that part of the argument, we get:
Gamma irradiation causes vitamin losses comparable to cooking, so there's not a nutritional reason to avoid gamma irradiation.

If we're looking for an error in reasoning, we're looking for a reason that this loss of vitamins might be a nutritional reason to avoid it. But if it's comparable to what's lost during cooking, how can that be?

Well, presumably the food that's been irradiated still needs to be cooked, at which point there will be more vitamin losses. The compounded loss of vitamin from adding a step in the process that reduces vitamin levels in foods is a nutritional reason to avoid the process, so let's find that answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that adding a step that removes vitamins will add up with other steps—such as cooking—thus resulting in a lower level of vitamins overall. That provides a nutritional reason to avoid the process, thus highlighting a possibility the Proponent overlooks.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to carefully read the question stem! If there's information in there that you ignore, you'll likely be led to a trap answer, or waste time looking for something that doesn't exist or is irrelevant.

Incorrect. It is a separate issue, but the Proponent deals with them separately (bringing up examples of each), so pointing this out isn't a flaw.

Incorrect. This answer might explain why vitamin loss in foods isn't a big deal, but it doesn't point out why vitamin loss in irradiated foods actually does create a nutritional reason against it.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't address vitamin losses at all, so it doesn't address the question stem.