Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real evidence

Question

Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards that were once in effect at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates near such sites. The point is a familiar one: who can say if a particular case of cancer is due to radiation, smoking or poor diet.

The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(a) argument fails to recognise that there may be convincing statistical evidence even if individual causes cannot be known
(b) argument inappropriately presupposes that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon
(c) argument inappropriately draws conclusion about causes of cancer in general from evidence drawn from a particular case of cancer
(d) argument ignores other possible causes of increase in cancer rates near nuclear reactor complexes
(e) argument concludes that a claim about causal connection is false on basis of a lack of evidence for the claim.

gotoknow3 · Answer

B is my answer

Pauline · Answer

B,C,D go with POE. I'm left with A and У which look pretty the same to me.
I will choose E, because it looks more concise.

HowManyToGo · Answer

Picked A.

If the town's rate of incidence of cancer incresed two fold, after the installation of the plan , with there being no marked change in other parameters which cause cancer, one can reasonably point a finger at the lax rules.

HMTG.

Dilshod · Answer

Pauline
the author never said, that there is no causal connection.
I think it is A.

kwasi7 · Answer

I will go for A.

ranga41 · Answer

(a) argument fails to recognise that there may be convincing statistical evidence even if individual causes cannot be known
 far fetched leaves a lot to assumption 
(b) argument inappropriately presupposes that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon
 It does not do that, it says the other way  
(c) argument inappropriately draws conclusion about causes of cancer in general from evidence drawn from a particular case of cancer
 Out of scope   
(d) argument ignores other possible causes of increase in cancer rates near nuclear reactor complexes 
 out of scope too 
(e) argument concludes that a claim about causal connection is false on basis of a lack of evidence for the claim.
Looks correct

E, to me..

biddu · Answer

i thought E, however on second thoughts i feel that answer is A

Reason why E is not the answer:
-- author does not deny causal connection. He thinks that cancer has many causes, and that these causes cannot be singled out.

gmat2me2 · Answer

A it is..... The second half of the stem clearly states this

Bhai · Answer

I got A as well

qpoo · Answer

A

(a) argument fails to recognise that there may be convincing statistical evidence even if individual causes cannot be known

statistics can discount the randomness

(b) argument inappropriately presupposes that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon

does not weaken the reasoning

(c) argument inappropriately draws conclusion about causes of cancer in general from evidence drawn from a particular case of cancer

from a particular case of cancer is not mentioned

(d) argument ignores other possible causes of increase in cancer rates near nuclear reactor complexes

does not weaken the reasoning

(e) argument concludes that a claim about causal connection is false on basis of a lack of evidence for the claim.

does not weaken the reasoning, just restate the reasoning

jerryking · Answer

E for me.

ronybtl · Answer

OA is A.

rgds

Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real evidence

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards