vivek6199 wrote:
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.
Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.
The opponent’s argument proceeds by
(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
Source: LSAT Critical Reasoning
Proponent: Irradiation helps keep food from spoiling. No radiation and no loss of vitamins (anymore than cooking) so don't reject on the grounds of nutrition or safety. In fact it kills Salmonella (hence improves food safety)
Opponent: Irradiation has no effect on botulism bacteria but kills bacteria that warn of botulism (hence increases risk of botulism). Safe chemical dip can kill off both salmonella and botulism bacteria.
What does the opponent's argument do?
(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
No ambiguity in any term.
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
No, it doesn't show any self contradiction in proponent's argument. It only highlights a disadvantage of irradiation (botulism issue) and then provides an alternative to take care of both salmonella and botulism.
(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
Nope. No undesirable consequences of safe chemical dip.
(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
No, safety of consumers is being considered by both.
(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
Correct. Alternative way is safe chemical dip which kills salmonella too (an advantage claimed by proponent). The safe dip does not risk botulism (a disadvantage of irradiation).
Answer (E)