Use the following text to answer the question.%0D%0A%0D%0AFact: It can be unsafe to eat raw meats.%0D%0A%0D%0ATessa: Meat needs to be cooked thoroughly to kill diseases like E. coli and Salmonella.%0D%0A%0D%0ARosa: Millions of people around the world live in cultures that eats raw fish and beef everyday.%0D%0A%0D%0AHow might a person who agrees with Rosa argue Tessa's interpretation of the fact?%0D%0A%0D%0A(1 point)%0D%0AResponses%0D%0A%0D%0AMillions of people have never had E. coli or Salmonella.%0D%0AMillions of people have never had E. coli or Salmonella.%0D%0A%0D%0ANot every culture has E. coli and Salmonella.%0D%0ANot every culture has E. coli and Salmonella.%0D%0A%0D%0ANot every piece of uncooked meat is diseased.%0D%0ANot every piece of uncooked meat is diseased.%0D%0A%0D%0AMillions of people don't know how to cook meat.
A person who agrees with Rosa could argue Tessa's interpretation of the fact by saying that millions of people around the world have been eating raw fish and beef everyday without getting sick from diseases like E. coli and Salmonella. This supports the idea that not every piece of uncooked meat is necessarily diseased. Additionally, they could point out that not every culture has E. coli and Salmonella, so it is not a universal risk associated with consuming raw meats. Lastly, they could mention that millions of people don't know how to cook meat properly, yet they still consume raw meats without getting sick, which further challenges Tessa's argument that meat needs to be cooked thoroughly to kill these diseases.
A person who agrees with Rosa's argument may argue against Tessa's interpretation of the fact by stating that not every culture has E. coli and Salmonella. They might also point out that millions of people who eat raw fish and beef everyday have never had E. coli or Salmonella. Additionally, they might argue that not every piece of uncooked meat is diseased. Another point they could make is that millions of people around the world may not know how to cook meat properly.
To answer the question, "How might a person who agrees with Rosa argue Tessa's interpretation of the fact?" we can examine the responses provided.
The fact given is that it can be unsafe to eat raw meats, which implies that there is a risk of diseases like E. coli and Salmonella if meat is not cooked thoroughly. Tessa's interpretation of this fact is that meat needs to be cooked thoroughly in order to kill these diseases.
A person who agrees with Rosa might argue against Tessa's interpretation by suggesting the following responses:
1. "Millions of people have never had E. coli or Salmonella." This response challenges Tessa's assumption that thorough cooking is necessary to prevent these diseases by highlighting the fact that there are millions of people who consume raw meat without experiencing any negative health consequences.
2. "Not every culture has E. coli and Salmonella." This response questions the generalization made by Tessa about the risks of eating raw meat. It suggests that there may be cultural practices or food handling methods that prevent the presence of E. coli and Salmonella in certain cultures where raw meat consumption is common.
3. "Not every piece of uncooked meat is diseased." This response challenges Tessa's belief that uncooked meat automatically carries diseases. It suggests that while there might be a risk associated with raw meat, it does not mean that every piece of uncooked meat is necessarily contaminated or unsafe to eat.
4. "Millions of people don't know how to cook meat." This response offers an alternative explanation for why people consume raw meat, disagreeing with Tessa's argument that meat needs to be thoroughly cooked. It suggests that some individuals may not have the knowledge or resources to cook meat properly, leading them to eat it raw.
Each of these responses presents a different perspective that supports Rosa's position and counters Tessa's interpretation of the fact.