First, establish the argument made by the stimuli.
Argument: Because pesticides are only 'dangerous' in large quantities, most people who experience stomach pain as a result of eating pesticide treated food are suffering from food allergies and would have had the same reaction to pesticide-free produce.
Question: which of the following best supports the argument made by the Farmer?
(A) People who experience stomach pains from ingesting pesticides generally suffer from no more food allergies than do people who do not experience such symptoms.Irrelevant -
Discard(B) Numerous tests have shown that beef derived from livestock raised on pesticide-exposed feed is safe for human consumption.Only talks of beef whereas the stimuli refers to food as a whole.
Discard(C) Pesticide allergies have been known to cause symptoms similar to those arising from food allergies.Irrespective of whether the symptoms are similar or not it doesn't actually tell us whether those eating pesticide treated food are actually reacting due to allergy. The symptoms inevitably would have to be similar for the stimuli to hold any weight. This is more of an inference that can be drawn from the stimuli.
(D) Stomach pain and other food allergy symptoms are not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, which are statistically rare and take longer to manifest.Keep this one. Firstly its states that stomach pain - the symptom cited in the stimuli - is not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, supporting the argument. It then goes on to state that it is statistically rare for these things to occur and take longer to manifest. This further strengthens the argument, as it would be difficult to state which food caused the stomach pains/allergy symptoms due to the time lag.
Keep(E) Many fruits and vegetables trap pesticide residue in the porous cell membranes just under the skin.Irrelevant - does nothing to assist the argument made by the farmer.
DiscardAnswer: Deladshus
Farmer: Though illnesses caused by commercial produce consumption are usually attributed to the use of pesticides on the affected plants, the reality is that pesticides are not usually to blame. Since pesticides are only dangerous when consumed in large quantities, most people who experience stomach pains as a result of eating some sort of fruit or vegetable are actually suffering as a result of their food allergies and would have become just as ill from pesticide-free produce.
Which of the following, if true, best supports the farmer's argument?
(A) People who experience stomach pains from ingesting pesticides generally suffer from no more food allergies than do people who do not experience such symptoms.
(B) Numerous tests have shown that beef derived from livestock raised on pesticide-exposed feed is safe for human consumption.
(C) Pesticide allergies have been known to cause symptoms similar to those arising from food allergies.
(D) Stomach pain and other food allergy symptoms are not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, which are statistically rare and take longer to manifest.
(E) Many fruits and vegetables trap pesticide residue in the porous cell membranes just under the skin.
Hi guys,
I am struggling to fully understand the following question. I don't have an official answer but I am leaning towards answer D.
Please help to fully understand the argument and the correct answer.