Use the following text to answer the question. Fact: it can be unsafe to eat raw meats.
Tessa: meats need to be cooked thoroughly to kill diseases like E. coli and salmonella.
Rosa: millions of people around the world live in cultures that eat raw fish and beef every day.
How might a person who agrees with Rosa argue Tessa’s interpretation of the fact?
A. Millions of people have never had E. coli or salmonella
Or
B. Not every piece of uncooked meat is diseased
A person who agrees with Rosa might argue Tessa's interpretation of the fact by choosing B: "Not every piece of uncooked meat is diseased."
Their reasoning could be that while it's true that raw meats can be unsafe due to the potential presence of pathogens like E. coli and salmonella, the risk is not absolute for every piece of meat. They might mention that in many cultures where raw fish and beef are consumed regularly, there are specific practices and measures in place to minimize the risk of disease, such as sourcing from reputable suppliers, following rigorous hygiene standards, and using special preparation techniques to reduce the likelihood of contamination.
Moreover, they could argue that the proper handling and storage of meats intended to be eaten raw are crucial for safety. Raw food diets, like sushi in Japan or steak tartare in France, often rely on fresh, high-quality ingredients and have a cultural tradition of careful and skilled preparation to limit the risk of illness.
Option A ("Millions of people have never had E. coli or salmonella") would be less likely to be used as an argument because it's a generalization that doesn't necessarily address the specific risk associated with raw meats. Just because millions of people have not experienced foodborne illnesses, that doesn't mean the risk isn't there. It also ignores the fact that some people may have had mild cases of foodborne illness that went unreported or were simply not attributed to the consumption of raw meats.
So is B the right answer
Yes, B is the more compelling argument in support of Rosa's position. It acknowledges the fact that while raw meats can be unsafe due to the possibility of disease-causing bacteria, not all uncooked meat is contaminated. This reflects an understanding that with proper selection, handling, and preparation, the risks can be managed, which aligns with the practices of the cultures that Rosa mentions, where raw fish and beef are consumed regularly without widespread incidence of foodborne illnesses.
What about A
Option A ("Millions of people have never had E. coli or salmonella") is not the strongest argument to support Rosa's position. Even though it is true that many people may consume raw meats without getting sick, it doesn't directly counter Tessa's concern about the safety of eating such foods. The prevalence of people not getting ill does not prove the safety of the practice; it could simply be due to underreporting, unrecognized cases, or adherence to strict food safety protocols that are not mentioned in the statement.
Furthermore, arguing that "millions of people have never had E. coli or salmonella" could suggest survivorship bias, where one focuses on the people who have not become ill and disregards those who have. This ignores the reality that there are indeed individuals who have become sick from eating raw or undercooked meats.
In contrast, option B directly addresses the concern about diseased meat and suggests that not all raw meat carries the same level of risk, which aligns with the notion that cultures have developed safe practices for consuming raw meats. Therefore, B is a more relevant and effective way to argue against Tessa’s interpretation of the fact, in support of Rosa's point of view.
Thank you
You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask. Happy to help!
Just to double check are you sure
Yes, I'm confident in the explanation provided. To reiterate:
Option B ("Not every piece of uncooked meat is diseased") is a more relevant argument to support Rosa's position. It directly addresses the concern by noting that while some uncooked meat may indeed be unsafe due to disease-causing bacteria such as E. coli or salmonella, not all raw meats are contaminated. Furthermore, it implies that with proper handling and preparation, the risks associated with consuming raw meats can be reduced, which is consistent with the practices of cultures that consume raw meats regularly.
Option A ("Millions of people have never had E. coli or salmonella") is less effective because it uses the absence of illness in some individuals to generalize about the safety of eating raw meats, which does not directly address the issue of risk. The argument does not consider that absence of evidence (not getting sick) is not necessarily evidence of absence (no risk).
In sum, option B is the stronger argument to counter Tessa’s interpretation from Rosa’s viewpoint. If you have any further questions or require more clarification, please let me know.