Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to

Question

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- Important)
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- Imp line)
Because the group is so patently biased, (the report's assurances should be looked at critically.- Imp line)

The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
Finding points of failure

A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution – conclusion is in-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 – NR

C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative – can go Either way
Questioning was not on sample – questioning interpretation – conclusion was about the
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased – Keep (answer)

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¬ – Out of scope

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

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

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).

KarishmaB · Answer

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 GMAT-Club-Forum-dts9n3cg.png

jm2k5 · Answer

Thanks  MartyMurray  . Great explanation!!

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB   MartyMurray  Would you like to elaborate more as to why the options A and E are incorrect ?

Do you mean to say that the option E is incorrect because we are not ruling out an alternate option by saying that even if the specific worries that public had about irradiation are ill founded then also irradiation is bad.

Are "viewed with caution " and "looked at critically ( as mentioned in the passage ) " not similar ?
Kindly explain for option A .
I chose A over D actually.

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray · Answer

The author is saying, basically, that irradiation is bad, and (E) is saying, basically, that the author fails to address the possibility that irradiation is bad. Thus, (E) says basically the opposite of what's true.

So, yes, if I understand what you're saying, it's correct since, regardless of whether the author has specifically addressed "the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable even if the specific worries the public has had about it are ill-founded," the author has generally addressed the possibility that irradiation may not be advisable. So, the author has addressed that possibility in all cases, and thus (E) does not bring up a missed case.
 
Yes, they are similar, but here's the issue with (A).

The issue is that concluding, because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution, i.e., "looked at critically," is not a flaw in the argument. After all, concluding that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution makes sense given that the report's author may be biased.

So, even though the argument does what (A) describes, that the argument does so is not a flaw. After all, what (A) describes is a logical thing to do.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm: The author is giving his opinion here: Although their worries may have subsided, that belief appears to be well-founded. He goes on to explain why he says so: Premise: 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. Intermediate Conclusion: Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically. If you assume that the intermediate conclusion is the conclusion of the argument, what role does "that belief appears to be well-founded." play in the argument? GMAT-Club-Forum-hdkrgrsp.png

consistentprep · Answer

KarishmaB   - I felt the main conclusion is "Because the group is so patently biased, the report's assurances should be looked at critically."

that belief appears to be well-founded - is the Background.

TO answer this question I guess identifying the main position/conclusion is important. Can you please help me differentiate,

KarishmaB · Answer

The author's opinion cannot be context.

Statement 1: The belief that irradiating food to kill bacteria makes it less wholesome is well founded.
 
 Statement 2: 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.

Statement 3: Obviously, the group is biased

Statement 4: The report's assurances should be looked at critically.

Statements 2 and 3 support statement 4 and statement 4 supports statement 1. 
Statement 1 supports nothing. It is the main conclusion.

Goldenfuture · Answer

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- Important)
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- Imp line)
Because the group is so patently biased, (the report's assurances should be looked at critically.- Imp line)

The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
Finding points of failure

A. concludes, merely because the report's author may be biased, that the report's assurances should be viewed with caution – conclusion is in-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 – NR

C. draws a conclusion about the motivations of people who favor a particular position based on a sample that may be unrepresentative – can go Either way 
Questioning was not on sample – questioning interpretation – conclusion was about the 
D. concludes that a position is well supported merely because some who have rejected that position may have been biased – Keep (answer)

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¬ – Out of scope

Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to

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

Nutritionist: For years people have believed that irradiating food to

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