GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Activist: Food producers irradiate food in or...
Start Learning for Free
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.
The reasoning in the activist's argument is flawed because that argument
- a)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claim
- b)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternatives
- c)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for it's conclusion
- d)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beings
- e)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studies
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf ...
Conclusion: Irradiated food is not safe for human consumption. The author uses the fact that the studies were flawed to conclude that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption. Is this a reasonable conclusion? No. The studies purported to prove that irradiated food is safe. The fact that the studies used flawed methodology should have been used to prove that the studies did not prove that irradiated food was safe. Instead, the activist takes the argument too far, believing that because the studies did not prove that irradiated food is safe, therefore irradiated food is not safe. Here “Some evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is false.” Answer choice (A) perfectly describes this mistake.
Answer choice (B): Use the Fact Test to easily eliminate this answer. Although past studies were shown to have methodological flaws, this evidence is not used to prove that methodologically sound alternatives are impossible to achieve.
Answer choice (C): It’s true, the argument does fail to consider the possibility that a non-flawed study might provide only weak support for its conclusion. But—and this is the critical question—is that a flaw in the reasoning of the activist? No, it is perfectly acceptable for the author to ignore an issue (non-flawed studies) that does not relate to his argument. Remember, the correct answer choice must describe a flaw in the reasoning of the argument, not just something that occurred in the argument.
Answer choice (D): As with answer choice (C), the author has failed to consider the statement in this answer choice. But is this a flaw? No. The fact that animal testing is widely done and the results are accepted as indicative of possible problems with humans falls under the “commonsense information” discussed back in Chapter Two. Testing products on animals is a current fact of life, and the author made a reasoning error by failing to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beings. Another way of looking at this answer is that it effectively states that the author has failed to consider that there is a False Analogy between animals and humans. He fails to consider it because the analogy between animals and humans is not false.
Answer choice (E): Again, the activist does fail to establish this, but it is not necessary since the independent scientists only commented on the methodology of the study, not the irradiated food itself.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf ...
Flaw in the Activist's Reasoning:
Treating a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claim:
The activist's argument assumes that because the studies on irradiated food were flawed, it automatically means that irradiated food is unsafe for human consumption. This is a logical fallacy as the absence of evidence does not necessarily prove the opposite.
In this case, just because the studies did not conclusively prove the safety of irradiated food does not automatically mean that it is unsafe. The activist should have acknowledged the need for further research rather than jumping to conclusions.
Therefore, the flaw in the activist's reasoning lies in treating a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claim.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Top Courses for GMATView all
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.The reasoning in the activists argument is flawed because that argumenta)treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claimb)treat methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternativesc)fails to consider the possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusiond)fails to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beingse)fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studiesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup