Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Mar 2709:30 AM PDT
-10:30 AM PDT
Preparing for the GMAT? Avoid these 5 major mistakes that can lower your score and hurt your MBA dreams. In this expert panel discussion, 4 top GMAT coaches - GMAT Ninja, Jeff Miller from TTP, Rida Shafiq from eGMAT, and Chris Gentry from Manhattan Prep- Mar 27
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What happens after getting an MBA? Is it worth the investment? To find out, I interviewed 10 GMAT Club professionals who have completed their MBAs and built careers in consulting, finance, tech, and entrepreneurship. Their answers might surprise you! 
Mar 1910:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Get a massive $250 off the TTP OnDemand GMAT course by using the coupon code FLASH25 at checkout. If you prefer learning through engaging video lessons, TTP OnDemand GMAT is exactly what you need.- Mar 26
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Confused about how to get the most from your GMAT mock tests? In this video, learn the perfect strategy to analyze GMAT mocks effectively and boost your score. We break down the common mistakes GMAT aspirants make when using mock tests 
Mar 2911:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Mar 3005:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
We know Strengthen and Weaken questions account for more than 50% of the CR questions on the GMAT. With CR becoming even more important on GMAT Focus, it's time you strengthen your weaknesses with an approach that improves your solving time and accuracy!
Mar 3011:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions.
Mar 3110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
The Target Test Prep team has recently introduced TTP OnDemand GMAT, a 400-hour live masterclass video course created by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder and CEO of Target Test Prep.
04 Dec 2023, 06:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
48% (02:24) correct
52%
(02:26)
wrong
based on 559
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome. Although their worries may have subsided, that belief appears to be well-founded: The research group that published a widely influential report dismissing health concerns about irradiated foods is heavily funded by segments of the food industry that desire widespread acceptance of irradiation. Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
04 Dec 2023, 10:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Explanation
Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome. Although their worries may have subsided, that belief appears to be well-founded: The research group that published a widely influential report dismissing health concerns about irradiated foods is heavily funded by segments of the food industry that desire widespread acceptance of irradiation. Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
To correctly answer this question, we need to find a choice that describes a flaw in the argument. The flaw will likely have something to do with how the conclusion is supported by the evidence.
Reviewing the argument, we see that the main conclusion is the following:
Although their worries may have subsided, that belief (that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome) appears to be well-founded
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The research group that published a widely influential report dismissing health concerns about irradiated foods is heavily funded by segments of the food industry that desire widespread acceptance of irradiation. Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
An issue that can jumps out at us as we go from the support to the conclusion is that the support is that "the report's assurances should be looked at critically," whereas the conclusion is that the belief that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome "appears to be well-founded."
The issue with that evidence being used to support that conclusion is that the evidence casts doubt on assurances that the belief is NOT TRUE whereas the conclusion is that the belief is well founded, in other words, basically, that the belief IS TRUE.
Simply put, the author uses the fact that we haven't proved the belief untrue to support the conclusion that it is true. Of course, the fact that we haven't proved something untrue doesn't mean that it's well founded. For example, I doubt that anyone has ever demonstrated that tickling an alligator with a feather won't make it laugh, but that fact certainly does not make the belief that tickling an alligator with a feather will make it laugh well founded.
Now, let's go to the answer choices.
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
This choice accurately describes something the argument does, but the fact that the argument does what this choice describes is not a flaw. After all, it's not illogical to conclude that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution given the fact that the report's author may be biased.
Eliminate.
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
The argument does not address the possibility mentioned by this choice, but its failing to address that possibility is not a flaw. After all, even if there are segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public, it's still the case that the people who created the report mentioned in the argument were biased. In other words, other people's desires don't somehow make the report reliable.
Eliminate.
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
This choice is clearly incorrect because the people whose motivations the author mentions and the people the author bases his presumptions about those motivations on are the same people. In other words, the sample and the people with the motivations are the same, meaning there cannot possibly be an issue with the sample.
Eliminate.
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
This choice may not quickly jump out as correct, but if we look at it carefully we see that it is.
As we discussed above, there is an issue with the argument in that the conclusion that the belief is well founded is based on the support that assurances that it is not true came from biased people. Reviewing this choice, we can see that it describes that exact issue, using different wording. Let's see how:
concludes that a position is well supported -> concludes that a belief is well founded
because some who have rejected that position may have been biased -> because assurances that that belief is not true come from biased people
So, this choice perfectly captures the flaw in the argument.
Keep.
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
It's true that the argument does not "address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded."
However, the fact that the argument does not address that possibility is not a flaw. After all, the matter of that possibility is irrelevant to this argument which is about only the belief that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome.
Eliminate.
The correct answer is (D).
Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome. Although their worries may have subsided, that belief appears to be well-founded: The research group that published a widely influential report dismissing health concerns about irradiated foods is heavily funded by segments of the food industry that desire widespread acceptance of irradiation. Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
To correctly answer this question, we need to find a choice that describes a flaw in the argument. The flaw will likely have something to do with how the conclusion is supported by the evidence.
Reviewing the argument, we see that the main conclusion is the following:
Although their worries may have subsided, that belief (that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome) appears to be well-founded
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The research group that published a widely influential report dismissing health concerns about irradiated foods is heavily funded by segments of the food industry that desire widespread acceptance of irradiation. Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
An issue that can jumps out at us as we go from the support to the conclusion is that the support is that "the report's assurances should be looked at critically," whereas the conclusion is that the belief that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome "appears to be well-founded."
The issue with that evidence being used to support that conclusion is that the evidence casts doubt on assurances that the belief is NOT TRUE whereas the conclusion is that the belief is well founded, in other words, basically, that the belief IS TRUE.
Simply put, the author uses the fact that we haven't proved the belief untrue to support the conclusion that it is true. Of course, the fact that we haven't proved something untrue doesn't mean that it's well founded. For example, I doubt that anyone has ever demonstrated that tickling an alligator with a feather won't make it laugh, but that fact certainly does not make the belief that tickling an alligator with a feather will make it laugh well founded.
Now, let's go to the answer choices.
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
This choice accurately describes something the argument does, but the fact that the argument does what this choice describes is not a flaw. After all, it's not illogical to conclude that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution given the fact that the report's author may be biased.
Eliminate.
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
The argument does not address the possibility mentioned by this choice, but its failing to address that possibility is not a flaw. After all, even if there are segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public, it's still the case that the people who created the report mentioned in the argument were biased. In other words, other people's desires don't somehow make the report reliable.
Eliminate.
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
This choice is clearly incorrect because the people whose motivations the author mentions and the people the author bases his presumptions about those motivations on are the same people. In other words, the sample and the people with the motivations are the same, meaning there cannot possibly be an issue with the sample.
Eliminate.
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
This choice may not quickly jump out as correct, but if we look at it carefully we see that it is.
As we discussed above, there is an issue with the argument in that the conclusion that the belief is well founded is based on the support that assurances that it is not true came from biased people. Reviewing this choice, we can see that it describes that exact issue, using different wording. Let's see how:
concludes that a position is well supported -> concludes that a belief is well founded
because some who have rejected that position may have been biased -> because assurances that that belief is not true come from biased people
So, this choice perfectly captures the flaw in the argument.
Keep.
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
It's true that the argument does not "address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded."
However, the fact that the argument does not address that possibility is not a flaw. After all, the matter of that possibility is irrelevant to this argument which is about only the belief that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome.
Eliminate.
The correct answer is (D).
17 Jun 2024, 02:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
jm2k5
Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome. Although their worries may have subsided, that belief appears to be well-founded: The research group that published a widely influential report dismissing health concerns about irradiated foods is heavily funded by segments of the food industry that desire widespread acceptance of irradiation. Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
This is a flaw in reasoning question.
Premises:
The research group that published a report that says "irradiating food is healthy" is heavily funded by those who desire widespread acceptance of irradiation.
Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically.
Conclusion of Nutritionist: The belief that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome appears to be well-founded.
Here is the flaw in the nutritionist's argument. He says that because a report that says "irradiating food is healthy" may be biased, hence irradiating food is not healthy. He provides no data on why irradiating food is not healthy.
A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution
He doesn't conlcude that report's assurances should be viewed with caution. He concludes that opposite of the reports conclusion seems to be correct.
B. fails to adequately address the possibility that there are also segments of the food industry that desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public
Irrelevant. The ones who funded the reasearch desired that irradiation be seen positively by the public. Those who desire that irradiation be seen negatively by the public have no role in this argument.
C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative
"position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative" has not been discussed. How the research was conducted and sample was taken is irrelevant.
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased
Exactly. The nutritionist concludes that a position (irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome) is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased.
E. fails to adequately address the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded
We have to find the flaw with the given logic, not worry about how he could strengthen his logic.
Answer (D)
Flaw in reasoning is discussed here: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8
