4-4-6 weaken Forum

[ltowns1]

Having a hard time understanding why (b) is incorrect. Someone responded to a question I had about this one, and then said it was out of scope. I thought that this was certainly in scope because it discussed the process of food, which I took to mean the process by which the body processes food.i do understand why (a) is correct, but I really did not see a strong connection to the evidence in either (a) or (b).

However considering the other three answer choices were just straight garbage, there really was nowhere else to go. So can someone explain whether you feel (b) is in/out of scope, and second, why does it not work for our correct answer?

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[ltowns1]

I'll give this my best shot...Someone else chime in if my explanation is inadequate.

Basically though, the conclusion that we're trying to weaken is that "The public should be told to cut back on fiber intake". Kyra's support for this is that if people eat way above the recommend amount of fiber (20-35 grams), that interferes with mineral absorption.

The reason B wouldn't weaken that argument is that we have no idea what kinds of food people are eating - whether it is "processed" or not. I take processed in this case to mean frozen, packaged foods and such. Her conclusion is that the public in general should be told to cut back, but without knowing what kind of food they are currently eating answer choice B is out of scope.

If there were additional information about how much processed food the public is currently eating, then this answer could either strengthen or weaken her argument potentially, depending on if the information was that the public currently eats a lot of processed food or if they eat very little.

Hope this makes sense!

It's much better than the one i read previously lol. thanks for your input!

I think that one of the problems was that I did misinterpret the word "process"

[Clearly]

Don't overthink it:

1) Fibers good, we should eat 35g a day
2) BUT HOLD UP, Too much fiber is bad, so we should scale DOWN our fiber intake

Assumption: We already eat more than 35g of fiber (why else would we need to scale down our intake)

Weaken by exploiting assumption ie A) we don't eat too much fiber, we only eat 10, which isn't enough. Therefore 1 is right, 2 should shut up because we need more fiber.

B) is incorrect because what the hell is processed foods!? That should strike you right away as being irrelevant without information about processed foods in the stimulus, or knowing how much processed food is eaten, it's completely random and should be forgotten about right away.

[Binghamton1018]

Anyone else notice that the wrong answers on the early preptests for LR appear to REALLY stick out?