|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 59
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 6
|
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong [#permalink]
 14 Oct 2009, 10:46
Question Stats:
33% (02:38) correct
66% (01:29) wrong based on 1 sessions
1. Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this food process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for humans who eat it. However, these studies were subsequently found by a panel of individual scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption
The reasoning is flawed because:
a. treats failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of denial of that claim
b. treats methodological flaws in the past studies as proof that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternatives
c. fails to consider that possibility that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonentheless might only provide weak support for its conclusion
d. fails to consider the posibility that what is safe for animals might not be always safe for humans
e. fails to establish that the independent scientists know more about the food irradiation than do the people who produced the five studies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: PMP
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 319
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
76
[0], given: 37
|
I think its C failinf to consider possibility of "a flawless method" to not weaken the conclusion
_________________
Thanks, Sri
-------------------------------
keep uppp...ing the tempo...
Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 498
Schools: Fuqua
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
101
[0], given: 15
|
I think it is D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 136
Location: Ukraine, Kyiv
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 60
|
vote for D as well.
_________________
Never, never, never give up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 156
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 9
|
"A" for me. What is the OA ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 62
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 3
|
D is probably the right option, Animal studies can not conclude "for sure" that food is safe for human consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 6
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
IMO A. It clearly talks about the flawed assumption in the argument.
What is OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 226
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 6
|
I think the answer should be A because the question is asking what's wrong with the conclusion not the experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 2
|
I'll vote for D as well.
Slight shift of scope in the argument.
Trials on animals results in food being safe for humans. Not a valid argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 278
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
il go with A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 59
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 6
|
Sorry for the delayed response guys.
The OA is A.
As correctly pointed out by 11MBA, it is the conclusion, we need to consider not the experiment. Here the stimuli, points out the there were studies done whose results safe irradiated food was safe. But later few scientists found that the studies were flawed. But never does the question say that the studies disproved that irradiated food was safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: Graduated
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1523
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
404
[0], given: 389
|
A is the best answer, for reasons already discussed. This one is a little tricky.
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 279
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 9
|
hitman4683v1 wrote: Sorry for the delayed response guys.
The OA is A.
As correctly pointed out by 11MBA, it is the conclusion, we need to consider not the experiment. Here the stimuli, points out the there were studies done whose results safe irradiated food was safe. But later few scientists found that the studies were flawed. But never does the question say that the studies disproved that irradiated food was safe. I dont quite get this part...the question did say that irradiated food is not safe for human consumption. Please help me understand why is it A?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 192
Location: United States (MI)
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
WE: Business Development (Consumer Products)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 40
|
I'm for A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 279
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 9
|
Would appreciate if you can also help explain the reasoning..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 164
Location: Banaglore
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 8
|
i marked D, but i am convinced that I was wrong. Nice question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
