jain2016 wrote:Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.

The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?


A) Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.

B) All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.

C) The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.

D) The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.

E) It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.

OAC

Hi Experts ,

Please explain OA through negation method.

Many thanks in advance.

SJ

The Conclusion: It is not reasonable to prohibit the sale of ephedra.
The Evidence: Echinacea and ephedra are both natural compounds with side effects, but echinacea is widely available.

The argument is making an assumption regarding the seriousness of the side effects of the two respective compound. If echinacea caused users to have a dry mouth, and ephedra caused users to have a stroke, we surely wouldn't think that the availability of echinacea warrants the availability of ephedra. But if the side effects of the two compounds were similar, then the argument seems logical.

This is what C is driving at.

The negation of C: The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are not comparably serious. If the side effects are not comparably serious, it no longer makes sense to claim that the availability of echinacea (potentially mild side effects) warrants the availability of ephedra (potentially more serious side effects.) If the negation destroys the argument, you're looking at the correct answer.

jain2016 wrote:Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.

The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?


A) Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.

B) All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.

C) The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.

D) The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.

E) It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.

OAC

Hi Experts ,

Please explain OA through negation method.

Many thanks in advance.

SJ

Hi, negation method is not necessary here and you can arrive at the answer without that too (which I assume you have already had)

Option C says that the side effects of both echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
If we negate this, then we can say that the side effects of both echinacea and ephedra are not comparably serious. Since the two products are not having comparable side effects, we should not talk about both in conjunction to avoid banning of one product. Hence the argument falls apart.

Correct option: C