A person who agrees with Rosa might argue Tessa's interpretation of the fact by choosing B: "Not every piece of uncooked meat is diseased."
Their reasoning could be that while it's true that raw meats can be unsafe due to the potential presence of pathogens like E. coli and salmonella, the risk is not absolute for every piece of meat. They might mention that in many cultures where raw fish and beef are consumed regularly, there are specific practices and measures in place to minimize the risk of disease, such as sourcing from reputable suppliers, following rigorous hygiene standards, and using special preparation techniques to reduce the likelihood of contamination.
Moreover, they could argue that the proper handling and storage of meats intended to be eaten raw are crucial for safety. Raw food diets, like sushi in Japan or steak tartare in France, often rely on fresh, high-quality ingredients and have a cultural tradition of careful and skilled preparation to limit the risk of illness.
Option A ("Millions of people have never had E. coli or salmonella") would be less likely to be used as an argument because it's a generalization that doesn't necessarily address the specific risk associated with raw meats. Just because millions of people have not experienced foodborne illnesses, that doesn't mean the risk isn't there. It also ignores the fact that some people may have had mild cases of foodborne illness that went unreported or were simply not attributed to the consumption of raw meats.