honneeey
Hi Expert,
How come "A" is not the weakener?
In my reckoning, nowhere in the argument it is mentioned that the rate at which Bevex becomes carcinogenic for Humans is similar to mice.
However, it does give an info stating that to only after having more than 25 cans a day it becomes carcinogenic for humans.
But the rate at which it becomes carcinogenic for humans is no where mentioned.
What if, humans have a better immune system than mice and can ward off more than 30 cans equivalent of Bevex.
Am I on the right track thinking this?
Thanks for your reply.
The argument concludes that Bevex is safe for people. Here's how the author gets there:
- Bevex is carcinogenic for mice when consumed in very large quantities.
- The very large quantity of Bevex observed to be carcinogenic for mice is equivalent to 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened drinks per day for a person.
- Therefore, Bevex is safe for people.
(C) is the best answer choice because it confirms that people drink fewer Bevex-sweetened drinks than the quantity observed to be carcinogenic (25 cans per day). This connects the logical dots leading to the conclusion. Now, let's take a closer look at why we eliminate choice (A).
Quote:
(A) Cancer from carcinogenic substances develops more slowly in mice than it does in people.
A carcinogenic substance is not the same thing as cancer. Carcinogenic substances have the potential to
cause cancer, which can then develop at a slow or rapid rate within the afflicted body. The argument states that Bevex is safe for people, specifically because Bevex is
not carcinogenic when consumed below a certain quantity per day (25 cans per day). This argument is about a substance that
may cause cancer, but it is not about the cancer itself.
(A) tells us that once cancer has begun to develop as a result of carcinogenic substances, it does so more slowly in mice than it does in people. But a substance that causes cancer can be considered carcinogenic regardless of whether the resulting cancer develops slowly or quickly.
(A) does not tell us how people are impacted by Bevex in particular. Also, it tells us nothing about how people consume Bevex (i.e. quantity consumed per day). As a result, this choice does nothing to connect the dots of the argument.
We eliminate the choice because it really doesn't address the specific argument being made.
I hope this helps!