Leni: Colm has made extensive claims that the consumption of red meat

Question

Leni: Colm has made extensive claims that the consumption of red meat is a primary cause of colon cancer in the indigenous population of Juong. But Colm’s own data shows only a strong correlation between the consumption of red meat and the incidence of colon cancer in the country, and since any self-respecting scientist knows that correlation does not prove causation, Colm’s claims must be false.

Which of the following describes an error in Leni’s reasoning?

(A) To fail to establish causation is not to succeed in disproving causation.

(B) Colm’s data is not provided for the reader’s own analysis.

(C) Since Colm has demonstrated correlation, his arguments must be accepted.

(D) She fails to cite any other studies of the population of Juong.

(E) She attacks Colm’s credibility rather than the basis of his arguments.

Show Spoiler

Thanks
AK
Please give Kudos if the question increased your understanding :-D

simplyanuj · Accepted Answer

Here is the official answer

While Leni is right that correlation does not prove causation, consider the logic of that statement. If I say that I failed to prove something, does that mean that I proved the opposite? Failure to demonstrate the existence of something isn’t proof that that thing doesn’t exist – absence of proof is not proof of absence – so (A) is the answer.

I can see 13 people have tried the question guys please give Kudos if you liked the question and help me unlock tests   :-D

Thanks
AK

dinesh86 · Answer

Leni: Colm has made extensive claims that the consumption of red meat is a primary cause of colon cancer in the indigenous population of Juong. But Colm’s own data shows only a strong correlation between the consumption of red meat and the incidence of colon cancer in the country, and since any self-respecting scientist knows that correlation does not prove causation, Colm’s claims must be false.

Which of the following describes an error in Leni’s reasoning?

(A) To fail to establish causation is not to succeed in disproving causation.

(B) Colm’s data is not provided for the reader’s own analysis.

(C) Since Colm has demonstrated correlation, his arguments must be accepted.

(D) She fails to cite any other studies of the population of Juong.

(E) She attacks Colm’s credibility rather than the basis of his arguments.

Show Spoiler

Thanks
AK
Please give Kudos if the question increased your understanding

Show Answer

Official Answer

A

mridupawandas · Answer

Can anyone explain why E is incorrect?

aditya8062 · Answer

because no where in the argument this is done. has Leni ever attacked colm stating that he lacks judgement? the answer is NO

mridupawandas · Answer

got it thanks

roneileonel · Answer

Hi guys,

I understand why the answer (a) is right, but I have problems to eliminate the answer (e).

I have read the statement and reasoned the answer in the following form:

Colm has made extensive claims that there is a causal relation between red meat and color cancer.
Leni affirms that strong correlation is not causal relation and that  any self-respecting scientist  knows it.
Therefore, Colm’s claims must be false.

Then

Since any good scientist must known the different between correlation and causal relation and Colm does not know, Colm is not a good scientist. If Colm is not a good scientist , then Colm’s claims must be false.

How can I avoid this mistake? Where am I screwing up everything?

Temurkhon · Answer

Correlation does not prove causation but not excludes it

A

AkshdeepS · Answer

Using POE it is clearly A. All other choices are either OoS or extreme.

mba757 · Answer

Stimulus: B; CP/C – Conclusion: Colm’s claims must be false (because correlation does not prove causation) – but just because no exact proof doesn’t necessarily dismiss there is causation entirely
A. This just sounds like a convoluted way of saying just because there’s no proof (i.e., failing to establish outright) no causation is not to succeed in disproving causation (i.e., doesn’t mean you necessarily show that causation doesn’t exist). This is exactly it. 
 Another example : “The white house has failed to offer any evidence that they reached a trade agreement w/ China. Therefore, no such agreement has been reached.” – I mean sure, it’s quite possible this is true. But the evidence does NOT undeniably prove that the agreement was never reached. 
B. The reader’s own analysis isn’t in scope here. We’re focused on the error in reasoning. Providing data or NOT providing data doesn’t say anything about the error in reasoning. 
C. This is what she is trying to refute. Not the error in reasoning. 
D. This isn’t the error in reasoning of LENI. If anything, this is the error in reasoning of Colm. Wrong person. Lost in the sauce, if you chose this option.
E. This is like the source/authority argument reasoning error. However, this isn’t happening. Leni is saying correlation doesn’t cause causation. She’s not saying that the person is dumb or the credentials aren’t there or anything of that nature. It’s the argument that she’s attacking.

KalleAbhi · Answer

Excellent — this is a classic  logical reasoning flaw  question, where the goal is to identify what’s wrong with  Leni’s reasoning  against Colm.
 Let’s unpack it in full detail.
 
🧩 Step 1: Restate the argument
 Leni says: 
 
 Colm claims red meat → causes colon cancer. 
 Colm’s data shows  correlation  between red meat and colon cancer. 
 But “correlation ≠ causation.” 
 Therefore, Colm’s claims of causation are  false .  
 
🧠 Step 2: Identify the flaw
Leni is right that correlation doesn’t  prove  causation.
 But she goes too far — she assumes that lack of proof  disproves  causation.
 In logic,  failure to prove X  ≠  proof that X is false .
That’s the key error:  confusing “not proven true” with “proven false.” 
 
✅ (A) “To fail to establish causation is not to succeed in disproving causation.”
➡️ This directly captures Leni’s mistake.
She argues:
 
That’s exactly the reasoning flaw.
 Not proving something true doesn’t automatically make it false.
 ✅ Correct answer. 
 
(B) “Colm’s data is not provided for the reader’s own analysis.”
➡️ This would be relevant only if we were judging  our ability  to evaluate Colm’s data.
 But the argument is about  Leni’s reasoning , not whether the reader can see the data.
 So this is  irrelevant .
 ❌ Incorrect. 
 
(C) “Since Colm has demonstrated correlation, his arguments must be accepted.”
➡️ This is the  opposite  of what Leni argues.
 Leni rejects Colm’s conclusion, she doesn’t accept it.
 This describes a reasoning  Colm might make , not  Leni .
 ❌ Incorrect. 
 
(D) “She fails to cite any other studies of the population of Juong.”
➡️ That might make her argument weaker in general, but it’s not a  logical error .
 You can’t call something a reasoning flaw just because someone didn’t bring extra evidence.
 The flaw lies in her  logic , not in missing citations.
 ❌ Incorrect. 
 
(E) “She attacks Colm’s credibility rather than the basis of his arguments.”
➡️ This would describe an  ad hominem  fallacy.
 But Leni doesn’t attack Colm personally — she attacks the  logic  of his claim (“correlation ≠ causation”).
 So this doesn’t apply.
 ❌ Incorrect. 
 
🏁 Final Answer:
✅  (A)  —  To fail to establish causation is not to succeed in disproving causation. 
 
💡 Summary insight:
Leni’s mistake =  “Absence of proof ≠ proof of absence.”

Leni: Colm has made extensive claims that the consumption of red meat

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

Leni: Colm has made extensive claims that the consumption of red meat

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