PrepTest 120

Incorrect. If this is the case, then we can set the safe limit below the level that's safe for children, so this answer doesn't weaken the Commentator's conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Recommendation/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
NA/Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
L: To keep food safe, we should ban carcinogens.

C: We can detect amounts smaller than are dangerous of carcinogens, so a complete ban is overkill, and we should instead set a maximum level of carcinogens in our food that's below the level that causes cancer.

Answer Anticipation:
The question stem asks us to find an answer that serves as a counter to the Commentator's argument. The Legislator wants to ban carcinogens, but the Commentator instead wants to set an upper limit on these substances. To counter that, we should look for an answer that calls into question the safety of setting these limits.

Let's start by understanding the Commentator's argument—after all, he's arguing for allowing carcinogens into food! So why does he believe that's fine?

His reasoning is that we can detect miniscule amounts of these substances in our foods—amounts much lower than would cause cancer. So it's safe to eat these foods with small amounts of the substances.

To weaken that position, then, it's likely that the Legislator would have to point out a reason that eating such small amounts wouldn't actually be safe and could still cause cancer. Maybe the substances build up over time, or maybe setting the limit on each piece of food would result in someone's diet having an unsafe level of these substances. Anything like that would serve to weaken the Commentator's argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a risk that would still exist under the Commentator's plan. If safe levels are set per chemical, but several chemicals at that level together can cause cancer, then his plan isn't sounding so safe.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to understand what you're being tasked with weakening. Here, the question stem asked us to find a counter to the Commentator's argument, and so we need to focus on that instead of on the Legislator's plan.

Incorrect. First, it's unclear what law is being discussed here—the absolute prohibition? That's the only one that seems to make sense. Assuming it's that, it's unclear how a limitation on that law has an effect on the Commentator's suggestion.

Incorrect. The Commentator's argument has no issue with some additives ending up falling into disuse because they cause cancer before they have a benefit, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. While this may strengthen the Legislator's prohibition, that doesn't weaken the Commentator's suggestion that we can instead just set an upper limit that's still safe on these substances.