Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value. But the Connorly Report is commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey’s largest corporate rival, and early drafts of the report are submitted for approval to Danto Foods’ public relations department. Because of the obvious bias of this report, it is clear that Ocksenfrey’s prepackaged meals really are nutritious.
The reasoning in the consumer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report’s claims are false
(B) draws a conclusion based solely on an unrepresentative sample of Ocksenfrey’s products
(C) fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has to create negative publicity for Ocksenfrey
(D) fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods’ prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than Ocksenfrey’s are
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods’ public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto Foods’ products
Can some one please explain me above argument and why the option D is correct.
I marked E for the following reasons:
Cause (Danto Food being the Ocksenfrey’s largest corporate rival) and Effect (Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value)
Please explain the reasoning I am not able to make out any sense.
Can you tell me why option E is wrong and option A is correct??
I'm happy to respond.
Apparently this is LSAT question, and these are typically a bit harder than than GMAT CR. This is a high quality question, and very tricky.
Let's focus on the exact conclusion. "Because of the obvious bias of this report, it is clear that Ocksenfrey’s prepackaged meals really are nutritious
The consumer establishes that there would likely be some bias, but from there, makes the extraordinary leap that what the biased parties were saying is wrong, viz. Ocksenfrey’s meals are nutritious. That's a huge leap.
Let's look at (D)
[argument] fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods’ prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than Ocksenfrey’s are
Technically, Danto Food's meals aren't discussed at all. Yes, of course, the folks at Danto Foods would also like to claim that their own meals are nutritious, but technically, the question here analyzes only whether Ocksenfrey’s meals are nutritious, and no explicit comparison to Danto Foods’ meals is made. That's why (D)
is not correct.
Let's look at (E)
[argument] presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods’ public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto Foods’ products
Suppose it were absolutely and objectively true that Ocksenfrey’s meals contain no nutritional value. Well, then, the Connorly Report would be 100% accurate on its own, and Danto Foods’ public relations department would have absolutely no complaint with it. In other words, in order for this fact to be something that comes into play, we need to assume that the conclusion is true
. If it really were the case that Ocksenfrey’s meals are highly nutritious, then conceivable that would be threatening to the folks at Danto Food's, and that PR department would block or alter the report. Yes, that would be important, IF
Ocksenfrey’s meals really are nutritious, but if Ocksenfrey’s meals are not nutritious, then the Danto Food's PR department is irrelevant. That's why (E)
addresses the big leap made in the concluding line, the leap from the possible existence of bias to a sweeping judgment that the conclusion is wrong. That is too much. Sometimes biased people and biased corporate bodies happen to say things that are true. Obviously biased and obviously wrong don't necessarily go together.
Does all this make sense?
Magoosh Test Prep