Fears, initially widespread in the general public, that genetic engine

Question

Fears, initially widespread in the general public, that genetic engineering of new biological products would produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism have proved unfounded.

In the few years since such work began, substances of great medical value have been produced, and no disaster has resulted.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest objection to the argument above?

A. The time since the inception of such work has been too short to allow for all relevant types of negligence or mistakes to occur.
B. Work on genetically engineered products has taken place under safety guidelines established by a committee of eminent biologists.
C. A campaign to publicize the possible dangers of such research has stirred great concern among the citizenry.
D. Several cities in which research organizations are located have passed ordinances forbidding the production within their boundaries of genetically engineered organisms.
E. When mutations have taken place spontaneously in naturally occurring disease-causing bacteria, new medical strategies have eventually been devised to counter the mutant organisms.

CR16835

SiffyB · Answer

Question statement:  
Fears, initially widespread in the general public, that genetic engineering of new biological products would produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism have proved unfounded.

In the few years since such work began, substances of great medical value have been produced, and no disaster has resulted.

To do:  Weaken the argument

Pre Thinking:   The statement starts off by saying that fears that some people held about the genetic engineering of new biological products are unfounded. The reasoning is that in this  short period of time , there has been no such disaster.

We have to find a loophole in this reasoning. What if the time taken for the ecological disaster to happen is a lot more than has currently elapsed since the work began? In that case we can surely say that the fear might not be unwarranted. 
Also, what if the author's information about the absense of any disaster is incorrect? Can there be a possibility that some disaster has occurred and the author is not aware of it? 
 NO 
Always remember we can only doubt the line of reasoning, not the facts presented. "No disaster has resulted" is a fact that we have to take for granted. We can't doubt it.

On going through the answer choices, we find that (A) fits our line of reasoning perfectly and is the correct choice.
(B) This is actually a strengthener. It says that work till now has happened under strict safety guidelines. We cannot assume that in the future, this might not be true. This statement gives us no reason to believe that the future research may be different from the present. Incorrect choice
(C) The reactions of the citizens does no harm/good to the argument. It is out of scope.
(D) The argument is about the benefits or ill effects of genetic engineering. Are we concerned about what several cities have done? No!
(E) This choice talks about what might happen after this new organism is created. We are concerned about the very fact whether such an organism might be created. Incorrect choice.

IMO, (A)

anupam87 · Answer

Conclusion: genetically produced biological products would produce an ecological disaster is unfounded. 
Premise – So far results are great --- no disaster has resulted. 
The assumption here is that the results reported so far is most helpful to conclude that there will be no ecological disaster.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest objection to the argument above?

A. The time since the inception of such work has been too short to allow for all relevant types of negligence or mistakes to occur. – Correct 
This weakens the conclusion because it shows that the results so far does not reflect all the possible scenarios.

B. Work on genetically engineered products has taken place under safety guidelines established by a committee of eminent biologists.
If this statement is true, it will strengthen the argument. – Incorrect

C. A campaign to publicize the possible dangers of such research has stirred great concern among the citizenry.
This has no impact on the conclusion. The concern among the citizen does not help to understand whether there would be an ecological disaster.

D. Several cities in which research organizations are located have passed ordinances forbidding the production within their boundaries of genetically engineered organisms.
This choice is tempting. But, this does not explain why the ordinance was passed and whether it was passed to keep the city safe from future ecological disaster. Incorrect

E. When mutations have taken place spontaneously in naturally occurring disease-causing bacteria, new medical strategies have eventually been devised to counter the mutant organisms.
This option has no impact on the conclusion. – Incorrect.

D4498 · Answer

Fears, initially widespread in the general public, that genetic engineering of new biological products would produce an ecological disaster- some uncontrollable new organism have proved unfounded.

In the few years since such work began, substances of great medical value have been produced, and no disaster has resulted.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest objection to the argument above?

A. The time since the inception of such work has been too short to allow for all relevant types of negligence or mistakes to occur.THIS IS OUR ANSWER.TIME HAS BEEN TOO SHORT TO SEE IT'S HARMFUL RESULTS.
B. Work on genetically engineered products has taken place under safety guidelines established by a committee of eminent biologists.ONE CANT GUARANTEE THAT FOLLOWING TOTAL SAFETY CAN PREVENT DISASTER.IT'S ACTUALLY A POSSIBILITY.AND WE DONT GO BY POSSIBILITIES.
C. A campaign to publicize the possible dangers of such research has stirred great concern among the citizenry.IRRELEVANT
D. Several cities in which research organizations are located have passed ordinances forbidding the production within their boundaries of genetically engineered organisms.
DONT KNOW WHETHER THESE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ONES WILL BE DANGEROUS OR NOT.MAY BE ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN PASSED FOR SEVERAL OTHER REASONS.
E. When mutations have taken place spontaneously in naturally occurring disease-causing bacteria, new medical strategies have eventually been devised to counter the mutant organisms.NOT CONCERNED ABOUT HOW TO COUNTER THE DISASTER.DOESNT WEAKEN.

Posted from my mobile device

Kritisood · Answer

experts request an explanation for this one  VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   generis

I understand why it can be B:
There has been no eco-disaster cus currently, the work is being taken place under safety guidelines established by a committee of eminent biologists. This goes to show that just because there's tight control on the work, the mishap is being averted. if this weren't the case then the probability of a disaster could/would be high.  But in this, we will have to assume that going ahead they WONT be taking precautions?

Also, how to eliminate A? A also seems like a viable option?

11Prime11 · Answer

Can the expert please explain why B is correct over A?

abhinav261289 · Answer

This is little complicated to explain , but let me give it a try.

(A) - The time since the inception of such work has been too short to allow for all relevant types of negligence or mistakes to occur. ->   This option introduces a possibility of error in future, but it's quite weak and indirect compared to option B. Things have been going fine so far, it may as well be the case in future, and even if a mistake or a case of negligence occurs, it might not necessarily result in a dangerous outcome , or a disaster.

Let's take a look at option(B) :

(B) - Work on genetically engineered products has taken place under safety guidelines established by a committee of eminent biologists. ->   This is a much stronger objection compared to (A) . The reason why there has been no adverse affects so far is because there have been strong safety guidelines. Without those, it creates a significant possibility of dangerous outcomes.

If you see the question statement : Which of the following, if true, constitutes the " strongest " objection to the argument above? -> It is looking for the  strongest  objection.  (B)  is clearly stronger of the two.

davidbeckham · Answer

Could you clarify the difference between A and B?  GMATNinja

Saasingh · Answer

Not an expert but I can give my reasoning.

Argument says that people's fears are unfounded because no disaster has happened yet.

A. The time since the inception of such work has been too short to allow for all relevant types of negligence or mistakes to occur. 
This is correct. Not much time has elapsed and we haven't done many mistakes yet. Leaves it open that we might do many mistakes in future and create this animal. Thus this gives us a reason to believe that the fear may not be unfounded.
Correct.

B. Work on genetically engineered products has taken place under safety guidelines established by a committee of eminent biologists. 
I think this has no relation to the conclusion. However, if anything, it does slightly strengthen it.
It should imply that the disaster has not occurred because safety guidelines were followed. However, notice that stimulus says "uncontrollable organism". Thus, if we are able to set up some safety guidelines and avoid the creation of this animal, maybe it isn't uncontrollable after all. Thus, peoples fears do seem unfounded. ---> strengthener.

Hope it helps.

Regards,
SS

Uditakaushal1992 · Answer

VeritasKarishma- Can you please share the explanation why option E is incorrect?

BottomJee · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Situation-  When genetic engineering began, many feared that it might lead to an ecological disaster. But within a few years, medically valuable items were produced and no disaster resulted.

Reasoning-   What is the strongest objection to the argument?  The conclusion of the argument is merely implicit, i.e., an ecological disaster resulting from genetic engineering is unlikely to occur. The argument depends on a prediction based on a few years’ experience that provided no evidence of potential disaster. However, one might object that a few years’ experience of genetic engineering is insufficient to justify the prediction. For example, errors resulting from carelessness or insufficient knowledge might have a relatively low likelihood in any one year, but over many years might be quite likely to randomly occur. Moreover, the recognition of such errors might take even longer to emerge.

Correct.  As explained above, observing outcomes over just a few years provides inadequate evidence of the ecological safety of genetic engineering. In statistical terms, a sample of genetic-engineering outcomes over a mere few years is likely to be too small, and perhaps insufficiently representative, relative to all outcomes over decades or centuries. 
 This information about the existence of rigorous safety guidelines tends to somewhat strengthen the argument. Even though it provides no reassurance that the safety guidelines would be universally observed over several years, it also does not indicate a significant probability that breaches of the guidelines of a kind that could result in ecological disaster would occur. 
 This answer choice might count as a reason to delay regulatory or policy approval of genetic-engineering practices, but it could also suggest that the campaign was based more on emotion than on science. It does not itself constitute an objection to the position given in the argument. 
 This answer choice indicates some regulatory resistance to making genetic engineering mainstream, but it does not constitute an objection to the position given in the argument. Outside these few cities with restrictive ordinances, genetic engineering may have been practiced quite extensively without creating any problems. 
 This answer choice suggests that even if serious problems were to result from genetic engineering, technological solutions could be available to solve those problems. But it does not suggest that such serious problems have a high likelihood; also, it suggests that even where there were such serious problems, no ecological disaster would ultimately result. Thus it does not constitute an objection to the argument given.

The correct answer is A.

aasthudragonpixie · Answer

Hello, I am having trouble understanding how options A and D differ in terms of their final inference, i.e., not all possible scenarios have been tested. In D, if genetic engineering is prohibited in some places, does that mean all possible scenarios are not being tested?

Fears, initially widespread in the general public, that genetic engine

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Fears, initially widespread in the general public, that genetic engine

Prep Toolkit

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