A is the right answer.Quote:
Conclusion: It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals—as the only natural foods.
Premise: A plant will take up the molecules it needs from the soil and turn them into the same natural compounds, whether or not those molecules come from chemicals applied to the soil.
Premise: All compounds made by plants are part of nature, so all are equally natural.
The author begins the argument by stating his/her position that it is not reasonable to search out organic foods as the only natural foods. He defined organic foods as those foods grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. He went on to provide the reasons why he/she has taken the position that it is unreasonable to refer to organic foods as the only natural foods. These reasons are provided above as the premises for the argument.
We are asked to determine the method of argumentation.
Clearly, it can be seen from the conclusion above that the author starts his argument by defining organic foods as foods grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. The question one may ask is whether organic foods are simply defined as foods grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. Well, since this definition suits the author, he/she focuses his entire argument on this definition. If there are other definitions and attributes ascribed to organic foods other than the definition provided above, the argument will be flawed, but that is not the bone of contention in this question.
Quote:
(A) redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument
Correct. This is exactly in line with the reasoning provided above.
Quote:
(B) giving a reason why a recommended course of action would be beneficial
This argument does not talk about a recommended course of action. Besides, his argument is rather aimed at arguing against searching out organic foods as the only natural foods. Incorrect.
Quote:
(C) appealing to the authority of scientific methods
This is completely out of scope. It is not in line with the reasoning provided above on the argument.
Quote:
(D) showing that a necessary condition for correctly applying the term “organic” is not satisfied
No. He is not showing or proving that there a necessary condition that has to be met for a food to deemed as organic. He has rather provided a definition to organic foods in a manner that suits his argument that other foods grown with chemical fertilizers are no different.
Quote:
(E) reinterpreting evidence presented as supporting the position being rejected
This is not how the argument above is made. The author did not reinteprete any evidence above. He instead provide a definition for organic food in a manner that is suitable to his argumentation.