IMO its C.

There is close contest b/w C & D, but D is 180.

I will go with D..

I remember going through an example in OG.. Inference question, I believe.. they picked 180.. saying the opposite will hold true..

C makes sense since it says that the effects are differet for different species of animals.. but does not say anything about human being..
_________________

Success is my only option, failure is not -- Eminem

please corret where i went wrong.

the question is to show which supports the chem com's claim right!

then D will actually weaken it wont it???

by saying , the chemicals wont be good for humans n rats???

explain the 180 thing u r talking abt pls
_________________

vazlkaiye porkalam vazltuthan parkanum.... porkalam maralam porkalthan maruma

I'll take B.

B says that the rats are no more likely to have cancer before the experiement, and the ratio did not change after the experiment was conducted.

I do believe D weakens the argument.
_________________

Don't be afraid to take a flying leap of faith.. If you risk nothing, than you gain nothing...

Thanks for nice explanation TeHCM

A is out of scope and D is the trap answer for those who misread the stem. That leaves us with (B).

A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats that were given high doses of a new artificial sweetener developed cancer while all the others remained healthyy, the sweetener is not carcinogenic for human beings and ought to be approved for human consumption.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the chemical company's claim?


Question type: Strengthen
Conclusion: sweetner is not carcinogenic for HB and ought to be approved
Evidence: 1/520 rats when given high does of new sweetner dev. cancer, while others remained healthy.
Analysis: Looking for Additional evidence to support conclusion.


a) Chemicals that are carcinogenic for rats are usually also carcinogenic for other animals, such as guinea pigs, used in experiments.

irrelevant piece of information to argument

b) The spontaneous incidence of cancer in this particular strain of rats is approximately one in 540.

additional evidence, in line with the conclusion

c) Tests conducted on a certain strain of mouse show that, of 500 mice given a dose of sweetener similar to that given the rats, 53 developed cancer.

greater % of mic developed of cancer, what can u say about human...how about nothing

d) Certain chemicals that are carcinogenic for human beings have been shown not to be carcinogenic for rats.

weakens the conclusion, certain c C for HB => Not C for Rats, logical opposite => No C for HB => C for Rats

e) The average life span of the strain of rat used in the experiment is 2 years; the chemical company terminated the experiment when the rats were 13 months old

slightly weakens the conclusion

I thought none of the answer choices were right in the beginning. But, the explanation offered for (B) is good. I will go with (B) now. It is the best among the lot.
Good question. Thanks.