Question

Which detail would function as a counter-claim to the main thesis of this passage?

A) The PIGE process is not only easier to use than the PIXE process, it is also cheaper for manufacturers to use.
B) Although the PIGE process uses nuclear physics, it is a far safer process than the previously used PIXE process.
C) The PIGE process has a 90% success rate at detecting harmful per-fluorinated chemicals in manufacturers' raw materials.

Answer 1

The passage's main thesis, it's difficult to determine if any of the provided options would function as a counter-claim. However, options A, B, and C tend to support the effectiveness or superiority of the PIGE process, rather than contradicting or challenging it.

Step-by-step explanation:

To identify the detail that would function as a counter-claim to the main thesis of a passage, it's important to understand the main argument presented. It appears the passage discusses various processes for detecting or producing certain substances, mentioning the Pidgeon process, chemical reduction, plutonium-239, and positron emission tomography (PET).

The detail in option A (PIGE process being not only easier but also cheaper than the PIXE process) would not be a counter-claim but rather support the idea that the PIGE process might be superior to PIXE. Option B (safety of the PIGE process), similar to A, supports the superiority of the PIGE process over PIXE by mentioning its safety. Option C (90% success rate of the PIGE process at detecting harmful chemicals) boasts about the efficacy of PIGE, but it's not clear if it counters the main argument without context indicating that a high success rate might be irrelevant or negative in comparison to other concerns or methods.