LSAT Explanation PT 35, S1, Q5: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma

LSAT Question Stem

The opponent's argument proceeds by 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage's argument. The proponent claims that gamma ray irradiation of food prevents spoilage and is safe, as it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria and causes no more vitamin loss than cooking. The opponent counters by pointing out that irradiation doesn't affect botulism-causing bacteria and removes the warning odor, while a safe chemical dip can kill both Salmonella and botulism-causing bacteria.

The structure of the argument consists of the proponent's premise (irradiation prevents spoilage and is safe) and conclusion (there's no reason to reject irradiation). The opponent's argument consists of two premises (irradiation's shortcomings) and an alternative solution (chemical dip).

Now, let's consider the question type: Method of Reasoning (MOR). We're asked to identify how the opponent's argument proceeds.

a) Isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent's argument - This choice is incorrect because the opponent doesn't focus on any ambiguity in the proponent's argument; they focus on its shortcomings.

b) Showing that claims made in the proponent's argument result in a self-contradiction - This is also incorrect, as the opponent does not point out any contradictions within the proponent's argument.

c) Establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies - This choice is wrong because the opponent does not discuss consequences of adopting both remedies; they only point out the shortcomings of irradiation and propose an alternative.

d) Shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers - This choice is incorrect because there is no shift in perspective between the proponent's and opponent's arguments; both focus on consumer safety.

e) Pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage - This choice is correct. The opponent's argument proceeds by highlighting the shortcomings of irradiation and suggesting a safer alternative (chemical dip) that achieves the same goal without the associated risks.

In summary, the opponent's argument proceeds by pointing out the shortcomings of the proponent's solution and suggesting an alternative that doesn't have those drawbacks. The correct answer choice is (E).