Please explain

As explained in the thread above, the argument follows the reasoning that just because something is bad in large quantities doesn't mean that it is bad in small quantities as well, and then we are given an example to show this. Answer choice (D) is not about something being detrimental in large quantities as opposed to small quantities. Instead it makes more of a part to whole argument explaining that just because five people like a product, that does not mean the population as a whole will like it. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Hello Melody, answers A, B, and C seem to follow the reasoning that if something is bad in large quantities, it does not mean it is bad in small quantities as well. This is the line of reasoning, so why would it even matter if it is followed by an example?

@Maroun, Great question. The general reasoning of (A), (B), and (C) are similar to the stimulus, but the examples used to illustrate their points are different from the example in the stimulus. The reason it matters that the example in the answer choice correctly mirrors the example in the stimulus is because the example is part of the support for the overall argument. The stimulus provides us with an analogy between smoking tobacco and vitamins, where vitamins are used to support a point about smoking. The stimulus is basically saying that lots of smoking is harmful, but this doesn't mean that a little bit of smoke inhaled by nonsmokers is harmful to some degree. Consider that a lot of vitamin A is harmful, but a little bit of it is actually good for you. In other words, it's saying "Lots of X can result in a certain effect, but this does not necessitate that a little of X would produce the same type of effect, only less pronounced. Consider that lots of Y has a certain effect, but a little bit of Y actually produces the opposite type of effect." Do you see how the example used in the stimulus is a key component of the argument structure? If the example illustrates something different from the example used in the stimulus, this means that the answer choice has a different support structure from the stimulus. Let's take a look at each of these answers—as well as the correct answer choice—to see why they're wrong and why (E) is correct. (A) says, "The fact that a large concentration of bleach will make fabric very white does not prove that a small concentration of bleach will make fabric somewhat white. The effect of a small concentration of bleach may be too slight to change the color of the fabric." The problem with (A) is that its example doesn't illustrate the same type of point the example in the stimulus does (where if we consume/use less of something, it actually has the opposite effect). As a result, we can get rid of (A). Additionally, this argument is entirely about bleach and doesn't use an analogy in its argument, unlike the stimulus, which uses an analogy. (B) says, "Although a healthful diet should include a certain amount of fiber, it does not follow that a diet that includes large amounts of fiber is more healthful than one that includes smaller amounts of fiber. Too much fiber can interfere with proper digestion." The problem with (B) is that it is only about fiber. It doesn't use any sort of analogy like the stimulus does. We can, therefore, get rid of it. (C) says, "The fact that large amounts of chemical fertilizers can kill plants does not prove that chemical fertilizers are generally harmful to plants. It proves only that the quantity of chemical fertilizer used should be adjusted according to the needs of the plants and the nutrients already in the soil." The problem with (C) is that it's all about chemical fertilizers; because our stimulus uses an analogy to make its point and (C) does not, it's not similar. (E) says, "Although watching television for half of every day would be a waste of time, watching television briefly every day is not necessarily even a small waste of time. After all, it would be a waste to sleep half of every day, but some sleep every day is necessary." (E) matches the stimulus really well. It uses an analogy with sleep—sleep is harmful in large amounts, but it's good in smaller doses, and this is used to support the point that watching a small amount of TV isn't necessarily a small waste of time just because watching lots of TV is a waste of time. (E) matches everything in our stimulus really well, so it's the correct answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!