LSAT Explanation PT 35, S1, Q6: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following could the opponent properly cite as indicating a flaw in the proponent's reasoning concerning vitamin losses? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The proponent argues that irradiation of food by gamma rays is beneficial because it prevents food from spoiling, leaves no radiation behind, and causes vitamin losses comparable to cooking. The proponent concludes that there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. This is the main conclusion of the argument.

The opponent, however, points out that the irradiation process does not affect the bacteria that cause botulism and that there are alternative methods to kill harmful bacteria in poultry.

Now, let's consider an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Does cooking irradiated food result in a greater loss of vitamins compared to cooking non-irradiated food?"

The question type of this problem is Flaw, which asks us to identify a flaw in the proponent's reasoning concerning vitamin losses.

Let's go through the answer choices:

a) This answer choice is irrelevant to the proponent's argument about vitamin losses. The argument is about whether irradiation causes a significant loss of vitamins, not about what happens to the food after it's purchased by the consumer.

b) This is the correct answer. The proponent's argument assumes that the vitamin losses caused by irradiation are comparable to those caused by cooking, but this answer choice points out that irradiated food would still need cooking, which would result in further vitamin loss. Additionally, if eaten raw, irradiated food would not have the vitamin advantage of non-irradiated raw food. This flaw in the proponent's reasoning undermines the conclusion that there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition.

c) This answer choice doesn't address the flaw in the proponent's reasoning. The proponent already considers vitamin loss and safety as separate issues, so stating that they are separate does not indicate a flaw in the argument.

d) This answer choice is irrelevant to the proponent's argument about vitamin losses in irradiated food. The fact that vitamins can be ingested in pill form does not address the proponent's claim that irradiation causes vitamin losses comparable to cooking.

e) This answer choice also doesn't address the flaw in the proponent's reasoning. The argument is about whether irradiation causes a significant loss of vitamins and whether it is safe, not about the benefits to the seller or the consumer.

In conclusion, the correct answer is B, as it highlights a flaw in the proponent's reasoning by pointing out that irradiated food would still need cooking, which would result in further vitamin loss, and that if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of non-irradiated raw food.