City Official: I cannot deny that sodium monofluoride, which is used

Question

City Official: I cannot deny that sodium monofluoride, which is used in all major brands of toothpaste to help prevent tooth decay, has been shown to be more toxic than lead. Those who oppose our plan to treat the public water supply with sodium monofluoride cite warnings on the back of toothpaste tubes advising the user to contact a poison control center if the user swallows more toothpaste than needed for brushing. But these same opponents ignore the fact that even though nobody reads these warnings virtually no cases of toothpaste poisoning have ever been reported.

The passage is structured to lead to which of the following conclusions?

(A) Sodium monofluoride warnings on toothpaste tubes should be more conspicuous to toothpaste users.

(B) Fluoride in toothpaste is not as toxic as warnings on toothpaste tubes would lead users to believe.

(C) Neither fluoridated water nor fluoridated toothpaste contains lead.

(D) Suppliers of public water treated with sodium monofluoride should not be required to warn their customers about its toxicity.

(E) Fluoridated water is not as toxic as those who oppose treating water with sodium monofluoride might claim.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

Alick1 · Answer

Is it E?

as opponents fear toxicity, but toothpaste fluoride—though toxic—has not caused poisoning, so water fluoridation is not as dangerous as they say.

arushi118 · Answer

The official’s reasoning is:
Yes, sodium monofluoride is toxic.
Opponents point to the warnings on toothpaste tubes.
But people routinely ignore these warnings.
And despite that, almost no toothpaste poisoning cases exist.
Therefore, the opponents’ fears are overstated.

This line of reasoning points toward a conclusion that:
The actual danger is much lower than critics claim.
So, E should be correct.

bb · Answer

Let's wait for Bunuel to reveal the answer

bb · Answer

I feel D goes outside of the scope of the argument. I don't feel that that's where the passage is heading, just purely based on the scope of the text we have as the core argument seems to be around the toxicity rather than the warning itself.

Nisha738

Is answer D correct?

Dereno · Answer

The question begins with the city official who accepts the fact that Sodium Mono Flouride (SMF) has higher toxicity than the well known toxic element Lead.

The next line speaks about an upcoming plan, which is the central crux around which the entire argument is being structured. The plan is :  Treating the public water with SMF.  Any plan or idea has both opponents and proponents for that.

The next line, presents the justification from the opponent’s perspective- “ Tooth paste contains fluoride (the same chemical used for water treatment), and toothpaste contains warnings at the back. These warnings are to ensure public safety in case of serious health problems arising due to excessive swallowing this toothpaste. The contact details of poison control centre is also given to aid the public in this regard.

The last line is the view point of the city officials- who goes a mile further to explain an important fact - “ Nobody reads the warnings , and no incident of poison case is reported “.

The last line has numerous interpretations: Either the general public is not aware of this warnings, even though aware they are not reading it. OR the case is not reported because no such health hazard has ever taken place.

If no such health hazard has taken place - then either the quantity of toothpaste chemical is not that toxic OR the quantity consumed is very low (public awareness). Linking this theme with the water treatment plan with SMF, we can say that the fear about using this chemical for public water supply treatment is unwarranted.

(A) Sodium monofluoride warnings on toothpaste tubes should be more conspicuous to toothpaste users.

The question stem doesn’t speak about the visibility of warnings, but the consumers not reading it. Legibility or visibility is not a question of concern here. Hence, cannot be a proper conclusion. Thus, wrong.

(B) Fluoride in toothpaste is not as toxic as warnings on toothpaste tubes would lead users to believe.

This is a contradiction to the fact mentioned in question. If, the fluoride is not as toxic as warnings , then why have the warnings be given at the first instance. It’s not the users belief, but the truth that fluoride is toxic. Hence, wrong.

(C) Neither fluoridated water nor fluoridated toothpaste contains lead.

We are not sure of this information, there might be traces of lead present in the water or toothpaste. This option can neither be supported or ignored. Moreover, the presence of lead is not the core crux of the question. Hence, wrong.

(D) Suppliers of public water treated with sodium monofluoride should not be required to warn their customers about its toxicity.

This option mentions the suppliers of public water should adopt evasive techniques by suppressing information or hiding facts. First of all, this is an unethical behaviour, secondly the example of toothpaste warning is mentioned to make it clear that warning signs do exist for a product. Not, hiding the information. Hence, wrong.

(E) Fluoridated water is not as toxic as those who oppose treating water with sodium monofluoride might claim.

The last line mentions no such incidents have been reported, this shows that the toxicity level is low and therefore the fear arising from drinking fluoridated water should not be blown beyond proportion. This is a correct conclusion.

Hence,  Option E

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer is (E).

The argument as a whole can be characterized as an attempt to refute an argument against treating water with sodium monofluoride. To refute that argument, the city official provides evidence tending to show that sodium monofluoride is not as harmful as some might believe. Thus, choice (E) expresses the point that the city official is leading to in the passage.

City Official: I cannot deny that sodium monofluoride, which is used

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

City Official: I cannot deny that sodium monofluoride, which is used

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards