Passage Summary: A pesticide used on peaches is safe for the average person, but because some people (especially kids) eat way more peaches than average, they are getting hit with high doses. The advocate argues that because of this risk to heavy eaters, the pesticide shouldn't be considered okay to use.

Conclusion: The use of the pesticide TMD on peaches has not been demonstrated to be an acceptable practice.

Reasoning: While the average person consumes safe levels of TMD, certain groups like children eat far more peaches than average and are exposed to disproportionately high risks.

Analysis: The advocate is making a moral or regulatory judgment based on the safety of a sub-group rather than the 'average' person. To justify this, we need a principle that bridges the gap between 'some people are at risk' and 'the practice is unacceptable.' Look for a rule that prioritizes the safety of high-risk individuals or children over the statistical average of the general population. It's the classic 'can't ignore the outliers' argument.