In this passage, the author believes that food producers are correct in resisting pressure to reduce the salt content in food. The author agrees that those with hypertension should be counselled on their salt intake. However, seeing as there is no evidence stating that reduced salt intake prevents hypertension, those who do not have hypertension should be free to consume their desired level of salt. A more generalised version of this principle would be: Instead of global changes being instituted to benefit a specific population of people, changes should only be introduced to those who are affected.
To approach these questions, read over the text, grab the main idea of the argument and put it into more generalized terms, and then find the best fitting answer. You can also think of the answer like another example that explains the author’s point of view in the answer.
Key Steps:
- First find the conclusion and evidence, this will make it easier to find the argument
-Arguments are dependent on evidence to draw conclusions
- Identify argument and generalize it
-Use the supporting evidence to help, examples should be proving a more generalized take-home message
- Prove your principle
-What is it trying to argue? If you can prove what the principle is arguing, it is likely a good principle
Keeping the generalised version in mind (Instead of global changes being instituted to benefit a specific population of people, changes should only be introduced to those who are affected), let’s work through the answers.
Which one of the following best illustrates the principle underlying the argument above?
A. Adding fluoride to drinking water has reduced tooth decay, but fluoride is unwelcome to some people. Instead, dentists should advise patients with tooth problems on better tooth care:
Statement A tells us that those with tooth problems should be dealt with individually, instead of forcing everyone to drink fluoride to prevent tooth problems. This shows us that Statement A follows the principle: Instead of global changes being instituted to benefit a specific population of people, changes should only be introduced to those who are affected. This is the same principle that is utilised by the author, therefore Statement A is correct.
B. The requirement to wear seatbelts has reduced deaths in car accidents but was unpopular when first introduced. People eventually accepted such changes even if it has not benefited them personally:
Statement B essentially tells us that even though people were not fond of wearing seatbelts, the practice was accepted regardless of individual benefit or relevance. This does not follow the principle: Instead of global changes being instituted to benefit a specific population of people, changes should only be introduced to those who are affected. Therefore, Statement B is incorrect.
C. Advice to wear sun block to protect the skin from harmful rays is ignored by some people. Those people should be charged for medical treatment for skin cancer:
Statement C is saying that those who do not take care of their skin by adhering to sun block advice, should pay for medical treatment should they ever develop skin cancer. This speaks to the principle that people are responsible for their health, and if you do not take care of your health, you should face certain consequences. This does not represent the argument principle used by the author, therefore Statement C is incorrect.
D. Passive smoking is still a problem for people who share a home with a smoker. The law should be extended to make smoking illegal even in the home:
Statement D is arguing that smoking should be illegal in people’s homes, as it is the only way to adequately protect people from passive smoking. This follows a principle that something (an activity) needs to be eradicated in all spaces for the population to actually benefit, regardless of those people who do not participate in that specific activity. This does not follow the principle used by the author of the passage, and will therefore not represent the author’s argument accurately. Statement D is incorrect.
E. Retailers cannot sell alcohol to people under 18 years, but providing more general advice on alcohol in schools would be better, as it would encourage young people to be self limiting in their consumption of alcohol:
Statement E indicates that a law is not enough to influence habits of alcohol consumption. Giving advice on the topic would be more beneficial. This follows the principle that putting in legislation / restriction alone is insufficient to influence behaviour or decisions. Counselling the population will be beneficial as it will encourage a mindset change that will influence behaviour and decision-making. This does not illustrate the principle used by the author and will therefore not be fitting for the argument. Statement E is incorrect.