A report on the use of monosodium glutamate

A report on the use of monosodium glutamate in food concluded, “Most Americans who consume monosodium glutamate regularly are not being harmed.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most Americans who consume monosodium glutamate do not show visible symptoms of harm by the substance, such as abnormal rashes or slower rates of metabolism.”

Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?


(A) Some Americans who consume monosodium glutamate regularly are being harmed by the substance.

(B) Monosodium glutamate could be causing long term damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.

(C) The report does not compare harm caused to Americans who consume monosodium glutamate with harm caused to people in other countries.

(D) Monosodium glutamate has been added to a growing number of commonly consumed foods during the past fifteen years.

(E) The severity of damage by monosodium glutamate differs from person to person.


The best answer is B. If there is a possibility that monosodium glutamate will cause long-term harm, then the absence of symptoms cannot be taken as proof that Americans who consume monosodium glutamate regularly are not being harmed.