ajit257 wrote:
Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
(A) Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
(B) There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens.
(C) Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as “standard.”
(D) There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
(E) Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The passage makes the premise that microwave ovens are not completely safe. This is followed by a conclusion by the consumer advocates that microwave ovens should not be accepted as standard appliances. Since there is nothing in the passage that provides an explicit link between the safety of microwave ovens and their acceptability as standard appliances, the consumer advocates’ conclusion is based on an assumption (i.e., an implied premise) that “an appliance should be accepted as standard only if it is found to be completely safe.” The most effective way to strengthen such a conclusion is to show that such an assumption is indeed true.
(A) The strength of the consumer advocates’ argument hinges upon the link between the level of safety of microwave ovens and the rationale for their acceptance in the home. Any lack of joy in microwave cooking is not relevant to the argument.
(B) Providing a specific example of how a person might be injured, even seriously, by a microwave oven may provide emotional support for the consumer advocates’ position, but does little to strengthen the argument logically: the possibility of injury has already been stipulated as a premise.
(C) CORRECT. This choice best strengthens the argument by making explicit the assumption upon which the consumer advocates’ argument was based.
(D) If no appliance is completely safe, then the consumer advocates’ argument is absurd: no appliance is, or ever will be, acceptable as “standard” in a modern kitchen. This choice weakens the conclusion.
(E) The relative energy efficiency of gas vs. microwave cooking is not relevant to this argument.