- Thu Jul 17, 2025 10:00 am
#113622
Answer A is the correct answer choice in this weaken except question because it does not impact the reasoning in the argument. The fact that soybean derivatives in most studies are the result of specialized processing techniques doesn't weaken the fact that certain properties of soybeans can have anticancer effects. This is largely irrelevant. Likewise, the fact that soybeans are not readily available to humans doesn't reduce the fact that they can still be effective cancer prevention methods. It only reduces the chance that people will use these soybeans.
B) B reduces support because it indicates that the purported decrease in cholesterol consumption that is believed to have anticancer effects is not enough of a decrease to have said effects. The phytosterols may be able to reduce cholesterol absorption, but if they cannot reduce the absorption enough to reduce the likelihood of cancer, they are not effective at cancer reduction. Therefore, we can eliminate this answer as an option because it reduces support for the argument's conclusion.
C) Similar to B, C indicates that the phytosterols in the soybeans are not reducing cholesterol absorption in the body in a manner that is significant enough to have anticancer effects.
D) D completely weakens the argument's reasoning by revealing that soybeans, while helpful in animals, do not lower human cholesterol anymore than normal. The argument aims to demonstrate that soybeans can also be effective in humans, in addition to animals. The study in D refutes this supposition. Thus, we can eliminate this response.
E) The stimulus tells us that isoflavones in soybeans are thought to inhibit the production of estrogen. E reduces support for the argument because it shows that estrogen, which the stimulus tells us can promote certain types of cancer, is not significantly affected by soybean consumption in humans. This reduces support for the argument; thus, we can eliminate this response.
