Connection

Okay well let's go over how the argument proceeds: Conclusion: this proposal should not be implemented. Why? because listing every synthetic fertilizer used to grow the grass and grain cows ate or every fungicide used to keep the grain from spoiling is ridiculous! Okay so what is this proposal? It's that milk labels should be required to provide information to consumers about what artificial substances were used in milk production. Now, it's true that technically the fertilizer used to grow the grass and grain cows ate or the fungicide used to keep the grain from spoiling is part of milk production in cows, but only if you take it to its strictest sense. More likely the main things for milk production would be more direct influencers on the milk, for instance, hormones injected that specifically have affects on milk production (as discussed initially in the argument), or vitamins or supplements given specifically for milk production. It's true that the other things like fungicides and fertilizers will indirectly touch the milk production down the line, however these would only be considered if we take this proposal to its strictest sense and not let ANY type of artificial substance get by us. That is what answer choice (B) means when using the words "if strictly implemented." Hope that helps clear things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Why is D incorrect?

@Shiyi-Zhang, Happy to help. (D) says, "Introducing a case analogous to the one under consideration to show that a general implementation of the proposal being argued against would be impossible" The question stem says, "The argument proceeds by..." (D) is incorrect because all of the stimulus and the whole argument is about milk labels, and there is no analogy. The support the author gives isn't an analogy; rather, it brings to light certain undesirable ramifications that would occur if the proposed legislation were followed extremely strictly. Another big problem with (D) is that it's saying that the author is using an analogous case to argue that a general implementation of the proposal would be IMPOSSIBLE. This is not at all what the author is doing, and we have no support the author believes it would be impossible. Even if we failed to recognize that the example the author gives isn't an analogy, we can eliminate this answer because the author is never trying to show that the proposal would be impossible. While he may think that the proposal would be really annoying and impractical, we have no reason to believe he thinks it'd be impossible. As a result, we can get rid of (D). Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

When going back to correct my answers I chose B, but what stopped me the first time was the fact that it mentioned "consequences" because the passage does not really mention consequences. Are we just supposed to assume this?

What is the correct answer choice?

Hi @DalilaPando, The correct answer choice is (B). If this is not showing up for you, please contact our support staff by tapping "support" from the left menu or by calling 855.483.7862 ext. 2 Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. PT. Keep up the good work and please let us know if you have any further questions!