PrepTest 111

Incorrect. The Opponent doesn't point out any word that's used in an ambiguous or contradictory manner, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. While the Opponent points out new considerations that undermine the Proponent's conclusion, she doesn't highlight how her statements themselves contradict that conclusion—it's only the new information that does.

Incorrect. The only alternative offered to irradiation with gamma rays is the chemical dip, but there are no downsides noted to using that method (it's "safe").

Incorrect. The Opponent discusses safety issues that would face consumers—botulism, in particular.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of 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:
We're tasked with describing how the Opponent's argument functions. She rebuts the claims made by the Proponent by bringing up new considerations.

First, she highlights a health hazard that gamma radiation can lead to, directly rebutting a claim made by the Proponent. Second, she highlights an alternative that would also provide the benefit of irradiation while avoiding the downside noted. Let's find an answer that reflects this method of rebuttal.

Answer Explanation:
The Opponent offers an alternative to irradiation—a chemical dip—that prevents Salmonella while avoiding the problem with botulism. This answer correctly describes the Opponent's response, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
As we've seen time and again, alternatives on the LSAT—causes, explanations, solutions—play a central feature in the logic of arguments. Pay attention when one is provided!