@alymathieu, Mehran and Naz have diagrammed this question in several of the other threads attached to this question. If you're looking for a diagram, most of the other threads have them. I will say that this isn't the type of question that has a diagram for every sentence, so if you're looking for a substantial, multi-tiered diagram, there isn't one. That's not the way this question is structured.
If you still have questions after having looked at the other discussions, let me know, and I'll follow up with an explanation the best I can.
Remone-DavisJanuary 18, 2019
PLease EXPLAIN this thoroughly !
Remone-DavisJanuary 18, 2019
I figured it out on my own never mind!
Remone-DavisJanuary 18, 2019
So, basically, the question is, "Would it be right if the government
abandoned efforts to determine what levels to allow toxic substances in our food? "
They then say only if the toxic levels in food are Zero. But then the passage tells us that we can never be certain of reducing the concentration of any substance to Zero.
Since the passage says that we can't ever know then it wouldn't be right for uncle sam to abandon his efforts in reducing toxic substances. And therefore uncle sam should continue trying to determine acceptable levels. Answer choice A! BooYOW!
I hope that makes sense.
RaviJanuary 18, 2019
@Remone-Davis,
Great recap of this question! You're absolutely right! The stimulus starts off by posing a question and then stating that the question would be right only if it can be reasonably argued that the only acceptable level of toxic substances in food is zero.
Gov. abandon food efforts to determine toxicity - ->only acceptable level of toxins in food is zero
We're then given some facts that show that the necessary condition (only acceptable level of toxins in food is zero) is false, so from this we also know that the sufficient condition is failed. The failed sufficient condition is the conclusion of the argument; while it's not explicitly stated by the author, it is the conclusion since we're given facts that negate the necessary condition, which means that we must conclude that the sufficient condition is failed.
Since we know that the conclusion is that government shouldn't abandon food efforts to determine toxicity, we're looking for an answer choice that paraphrases this.
Answer A is correct because it accurately paraphrases the conclusion we identified—the government should continue trying to determine acceptable levels for toxic substances in our food supply. This is our choice.
Answer B is incorrect because the stimulus gives us information that makes us know that we can never be sure that the concentration of toxins in food is zero (it says all we can know is that the concentration has been reduced to below the threshold of detection of current analytical methods).
Answer C is incorrect because although this is an inference we can make, it does not accurately capture the overall conclusion of the argument.
Answer D is incorrect because, like C, although it's an inference we can make, this answer does not give us an overall summary of the argument, so it's incorrect.
Answer E is incorrect because the author isn't arguing for the government to refine its methods of detecting toxic substances; the author argues that the government should continue to try to determine acceptable levels for toxic substances in our food supply. For all we know, the author could support the government using the same methods it has used in the past.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have more questions!
