Lycopene, glutathione, and glutamine are powerful antioxidants that neutralize free radicals produced in the body as a result of routine bodily processes. An excess of these free radicals causes rapid aging because they accelerate the rate of cellular damage, and aging is said to be the result of this damage. Thus, to slow down aging it is necessary to supplement your diet with these antioxidants on a daily basis. Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this argument?

Introduction / Context:
This argument claims that daily antioxidant supplementation is necessary to slow aging. The reasoning links free radicals to cellular damage and aging, then asserts that antioxidants that neutralize these free radicals must be taken as supplements. The question asks which additional fact most seriously undermines this line of reasoning. To weaken the argument, we should look for information that either breaks the link between free radicals and aging or shows that supplements are not necessary because another factor already neutralizes these free radicals effectively.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Lycopene, glutathione, and glutamine are powerful antioxidants.
• These antioxidants neutralize free radicals produced by routine bodily processes.
• An excess of free radicals leads to rapid aging by accelerating cellular damage.
• Aging is described as the result of this damage.
• Conclusion: To slow down aging it is necessary to supplement your diet daily with these antioxidants.

Concept / Approach:
The conclusion has two key parts: first, that free radicals cause aging; second, that daily dietary supplements of specific antioxidants are necessary to reduce these free radicals. To undermine the argument, we should show that supplementation is not actually necessary. A strong weakening statement will describe an alternative mechanism that already neutralizes or controls free radicals adequately, making extra supplements redundant. Statements about people's attitudes toward aging or about minor details of diet are less relevant to the logical core of the argument.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Option A says that most persons are not concerned with aging effects until it is too late to act. This may describe human behavior but does not address whether antioxidants are necessary or effective in slowing aging.Step 2: Option B states that exercise associated with normal daily activities effectively neutralizes and dissipates the free radicals produced by routine bodily processes.Step 3: If normal exercise already neutralizes these free radicals effectively, then the body does not have an excess of free radicals simply from routine processes.Step 4: In that case, daily antioxidant supplementation is not necessary to prevent free radical overload, because exercise is already performing the neutralizing role.Step 5: This directly attacks the argument's claim that supplementation is necessary. If the free radical problem is already handled by exercise, the conclusion about the need for daily supplements is undermined.Step 6: Option C combines A and B, but the weakening force comes entirely from B. A alone does not damage the logic.Step 7: Option E notes that many individuals consume antioxidants in normal food. This may suggest that some people do not need extra supplements, but it does not show that supplementation is unnecessary for everyone, because the quantities might be insufficient.Step 8: Therefore, the statement that most seriously undermines the argument is option B.

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option A speaks about when people become concerned with aging and does not affect whether supplements are logically required to slow aging.
• Option C includes A but adds no extra logical weakness beyond B alone.
• Option D is incorrect because at least one option, B, clearly weakens the argument.
• Option E suggests people already consume some antioxidants, but this might support supplementation if dietary amounts are low. It does not directly show that supplements are unnecessary.

Common Pitfalls:

• Confusing emotional or behavioral statements about aging with logical evidence regarding biochemical processes.
• Overvaluing partial information about diet without checking whether it really challenges the necessity claim.
• Failing to see that an alternative natural mechanism for neutralizing free radicals directly undercuts the need for additional supplementation.

Final Answer:
The argument is most seriously undermined by the fact that exercise associated with normal daily activities effectively neutralizes and dissipates the free radicals produced by routine bodily processes.