Question
Everyone should replace the meat that they eat with fish because fish is a healthier choice. Fish is high in protein, as well as a wide range of vitamins and minerals, and very low in unhealthy fats. In fact, the American heart association, one of the nation's largest health charities, recommends eating at least two servings of fish per week.
A student is developing a counterclaim to this argument. which counterclaim is the most fair and effective?
A. People should avoid fish because studies have shown that people who eat fish regularly have a 22 percent higher risk of skin cancer
B. large fish such as a grouper and bluefin tuna are known to have elevated levels of mercury, a toxic metal than can cause a wide range if health problems
C. people should avoid fish because the fish are treated cruelly from the moment they are caught until they are brought to market
D. workers in the fishing industries are badly mistreated, and if you eat fish then you are supporting this horrible and unethical industry
A student is developing a counterclaim to this argument. which counterclaim is the most fair and effective?
A. People should avoid fish because studies have shown that people who eat fish regularly have a 22 percent higher risk of skin cancer
B. large fish such as a grouper and bluefin tuna are known to have elevated levels of mercury, a toxic metal than can cause a wide range if health problems
C. people should avoid fish because the fish are treated cruelly from the moment they are caught until they are brought to market
D. workers in the fishing industries are badly mistreated, and if you eat fish then you are supporting this horrible and unethical industry
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The most fair and effective counterclaim is B. "large fish such as a grouper and bluefin tuna are known to have elevated levels of mercury, a toxic metal that can cause a wide range of health problems."
This counterclaim provides a specific health-related reason to reconsider the consumption of fish, highlighting a legitimate concern that could impact individuals' health. It distinguishes itself by focusing on a factual aspect—mercury levels in certain fish—rather than emotional arguments about animal treatment or industry practices, which may not directly address the original claim about fish being a healthier alternative to meat.
This counterclaim provides a specific health-related reason to reconsider the consumption of fish, highlighting a legitimate concern that could impact individuals' health. It distinguishes itself by focusing on a factual aspect—mercury levels in certain fish—rather than emotional arguments about animal treatment or industry practices, which may not directly address the original claim about fish being a healthier alternative to meat.