#7 - An artificial hormone has recently been developed

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

The argument notes that lawmakers are considering a proposal requiring milk labels to provide
information about what artifi cial substances were used in the production of the milk. The conclusion
of the argument is that “the proposal should not be implemented,” because it would be unimaginably
diffi cult to list every artifi cial substance that went into the process of producing milk.

Since you are asked to identify the method of reasoning, remember to avoid responses that do not
pass the Fact Test (that is, responses that describe an event that did not occur in the stimulus).

Answer choice (A): The author proposes no “alternative course of action,” so this response is
incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The author does argue against the proposal,
and the proposal does lead to absurd consequences because identifying all the substances involved
could be tremendously diffi cult and listing the known substances would probably be impossible to fi t
onto a milk label.

Answer choice (C): The author does not offer any alternatives to the proposal.

Answer choice (D): This was the most popular incorrect answer. The key to eliminating this response
is to rigorously examine each part of the answer. Many students accept the portion that refers
to the analogous case because they believe that the references to fertilizer and fungicide qualify
as analogous cases. But, examine those cases closely—they are not analogous cases but rather
implications of the proposal regarding milk production (a qualifying analogy would likely have
involved discussing a different animal or a different product than the ones the proposal covered.).
Because the author did not make an analogous case, this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (E): This answer attempts to state that the author makes a source argument. The
author never questions the motives of those making the proposal, only the ultimate logical and
practical implications of the proposal.

[LetsGetThis180]

I picked B because I didn't like any of the other answer choices that were given but I wasn't so fond of B either. The only thing I don't understand is "absurd consequences." It kind of threw me off. I felt like they were more just examples instead of consequences. Can someone please elaborate more on this answer choice? Thanks in advance.

[Adam Tyson]

Consider the author's tone here, LetsGetThis, which is at least partially indicated by the use of the phrase "just imagine trying" coupled with an exclamation point at the end of the argument. The author is alarmed, perhaps? He's pretty excited or agitated, to be using an exclamation point rather than just a period. The author is implying that to attempt to comply would be very difficult, at best. He's suggesting that such labels would be incredibly long, large, and detailed, providing an extraordinarily large amount of information to the consumer. A good prephrase here would probably be something like "suggesting that the results would be unmanageable" or "showing that the consequences would be too extreme." If that is the idea that you take into the answers, answer B should look a lot more attractive, don't you think?

Tone indicators matter in LR, not just in RC, although the tone of most LR questions is typically fairly neutral and reasonable. When there are tone indicators, use them!

[LetsGetThis180]

That was extremely helpful! Thanks so much Adam!

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore,
I am still confused about B and D
For D, why the examples of grass, cows, and grain are not analogous cases to artificial substances in milk? I think they are analogous. Also, D talks about these cases are "to show that general implementation..." which makes these examples analog to each other
Additionally, if we could infer that the "implementation led to absurd consequences" in B, why we cannot infer that "implementation is impossible" in E?
Lastly, can I also argue D is wrong because it said "a case" but the stimulus introduced several cases?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

An analogous case is a different but similar case, CJ. In the stimulus, the fungicide and fertilizer are the SAME case as the initial milk hormone case. The law is about any additional substances used to produce milk. Fungicides and fertilizers are used in the stimulus as substances used in the production of milk. Because there's no analogy in the stimulus, we cannot pick answer choice (D). It does not meet the FACT test. Additionally, the stimulus doesn't support that implementation would be IMPOSSIBLE. That's far too strong. It would be a hassle. It would be inefficient. But it wouldn't be impossible. In answer choice (B), implementation would lead to absurd consequences. That's a less stringent statement and fits the stimulus.

Regarding a case v multiple cases in answer choice (D), I would argue that it's all still a single case. It's all about the implementation of a policy to label milk products based on the substances used in making the milk.

Hope that helps!