It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 02:58

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 591

Kudos [?]: 480 [4], given: 200

Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2015, 10:54
4
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (01:20) correct 44% (01:33) wrong based on 349 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Source: PowerScore CR Bible

Did you like the question ? Please don't forget - Kudo's are the best way to thank !
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660


Last edited by broall on 31 May 2017, 08:18, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 480 [4], given: 200

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 14 Sep 2014
Posts: 106

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 236

Concentration: Technology, Finance
WE: Analyst (Other)
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2015, 11:42
Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make its inverse true. A flawed study neither proves nor disproves a claim.
We do not have enough information to indicate that the irradiated food is unsafe for human consumption.

The correct answer is [A].

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 236

Current Student
User avatar
S
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 915

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 79

Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M)
GPA: 3.71
Reviews Badge
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2015, 06:12
Power Score CR Bible is for GMAT or LSAT ? Can anyone shed light.

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 79

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2015
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2015, 11:03
I still cannot understand as to why E is wrong? A sounds a convincing ans but why is E wrong? Could anyone please clarify?

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Build your own dreams,Otherwise some one else will hire you to build there's.
Joined: 30 Apr 2015
Posts: 96

Kudos [?]: 27 [2], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: BYU-Marriott'18
GMAT 1: 590 Q45 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.68
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2015, 18:43
2
This post received
KUDOS
According to E the argument is flawed because it does not prove that independent scientist are more capable than other scientist.
But this is not necessary to prove.
The claim is:As methodology is wrong so the result is also wrong.
It is not necessary as some other correct methodology might give the same result.

+1 Kudos if you understand :-D
_________________

"Follow your heart and realize that your dream is a dream for a reason"
-Dori Roberts

Kudos [?]: 27 [2], given: 30

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
Posts: 39

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 105

Location: India
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2016, 01:05
051994 wrote:
I still cannot understand as to why E is wrong? A sounds a convincing ans but why is E wrong? Could anyone please clarify?




Even I had chosen E.
But on close examination, I do realise that scientists say that the claim is wrong , just because methodology is wropng

when methodology is wrong, you cant say anything about the claim ...
_________________

When you are grateful - when you can see what you have - you unlock blessings to flow in your life

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 105

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 30 Dec 2015
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 153

GPA: 3.92
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2017, 09:07
good question:
Five animal tests concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat. However, these studies were found by a panel of scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, hence not safe for human consumption.

(A) treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claim:
i.e. a flawed methodology is enough to prove the result of study to be incorrect. What if the methodology that the scientists deem correct also results in the conclusion that irradiated food is safe to eat?
_________________

If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 153

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 690

Kudos [?]: 230 [1], given: 855

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2017, 06:02
1
This post received
KUDOS
The structure of the argument is as follows: Premise: Food producers
irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Premise: 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 humans to eat. Premise: These studies were
subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously
flawed in their methodology. 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 (nonflawed
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.

Solution 2 :-

Author's conclusion - Irradiated foods are dangerous

Argument - The study which claimed that Irradiated foods are not dangerous are flawed in their methodology. Hence Irradiated foods are dangerous.

Just because the methodology used was wrong we are told that irradiated food is dangerous. i.e we still dont have a proof (s study) that irradiated foods are safe. Hence they are dangerous.

This is not necessarily true. This is what A attacks.

The "claim" in A is "Irradiated foods are safe". We haven't proved it and hence there is "denial of the claim" (Unsafe)
Hence A.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 230 [1], given: 855

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 207

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 110

Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Sep 2017, 04:13
Hi Anaira,

One Question, Please help.

Premise says "The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for human to eat" => studies didn't fail to prove it, only methodology is flawed.

Now choice A:

treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting proof of the denial of that claim
So should we consider "flawed methodology to prove == treat as failure to prove claim" ?.

Please clarify

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 110

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 May 2017
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Education)
Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2017, 09:04
Choice (A) makes sense.

Treats a failure ( here implies that the five animal studies conducted to prove that irradiated food is safe for humans to consume is a FAILURE according to the ACTIVIST ) to prove a claim ( that irradiated food is not safe based on the observation of the independent scientists ) as constituting proof of the denial of that claim ( that irradiated food is safe to consume ).

Choices B, D & E are irrelevant to the argument.

Choice ( C ) is tempting but is not necessarily a flaw so to speak.

(A) IT IS !!!!!!!!!!!!

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf   [#permalink] 04 Oct 2017, 09:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.