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.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
19 Mar 2026, 03:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Public health official: It is true that the organizers of recent campaigns linking the long-term use of baby formula to immune-system disorders have predicated such alarmist messaging on flimsy evidence in the past. This time, however, their concerns should be taken much more seriously, given that the studies purporting to debunk the link between baby formula and immune disorders have all received substantial funding from manufacturers of baby formula or their suppliers.
The public health official’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of:
A. calling into question a conclusion reached by certain entities simply because those entities have a financial interest in that outcome
B. failing to differentiate between the absence of counterevidence against a claim and the existence of evidence supporting that claim
C. mistaking a rebuttal of a counterargument against a claim for an argument in favor of that claim
D. taking facts that are merely consistent with a claim to be evidence in favor of the claim
E. treating opposition to a claim from potentially biased sources as evidence supporting the claim
The public health official’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of:
A. calling into question a conclusion reached by certain entities simply because those entities have a financial interest in that outcome
B. failing to differentiate between the absence of counterevidence against a claim and the existence of evidence supporting that claim
C. mistaking a rebuttal of a counterargument against a claim for an argument in favor of that claim
D. taking facts that are merely consistent with a claim to be evidence in favor of the claim
E. treating opposition to a claim from potentially biased sources as evidence supporting the claim
19 Mar 2026, 03:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Public health official: It is true that the organizers of recent campaigns linking the long-term use of baby formula to immune-system disorders have predicated such alarmist messaging on flimsy evidence in the past. This time, however, their concerns should be taken much more seriously, given that the studies purporting to debunk the link between baby formula and immune disorders have all received substantial funding from manufacturers of baby formula or their suppliers.
The public health official’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of:
A. calling into question a conclusion reached by certain entities simply because those entities have a financial interest in that outcome
B. failing to differentiate between the absence of counterevidence against a claim and the existence of evidence supporting that claim
C. mistaking a rebuttal of a counterargument against a claim for an argument in favor of that claim
D. taking facts that are merely consistent with a claim to be evidence in favor of the claim
E. treating opposition to a claim from potentially biased sources as evidence supporting the claim
The statement positioned as the public health official’s conclusion here is “This time, the campaigners’ concerns should be taken much more seriously”. In other words, the supposed main point is that the campaign’s warning is more likely to be valid now than in earlier cases.
However, the official provides no actual supporting evidence for that claim. There is no direct evidence linking baby formula to later immune-system problems. Instead, the only reasoning offered is that the opposing studies were funded by interested parties.
This creates a clear gap: casting doubt on the opposing evidence does not provide affirmative support for the campaigners’ claim. Even if the opposing studies are biased or flawed, that still does not establish that the campaigners are correct.
Also, the opposing studies are not actually refuted. The argument only raises suspicion about them, but gives no alternative evidence. So the conclusion remains unsupported.
Thus, the flaw is relying solely on attacking the credibility of opposing evidence without providing positive support for the conclusion. That fallacy is captured by choice E.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
Choice A is incorrect because skepticism toward biased sources is reasonable and does not describe a flaw. It also does not address the real issue, which is the lack of supporting evidence.
Choice B is irrelevant because there is counterevidence present, even if it is questionable.
Choice C is incorrect because the argument does not actually refute opposing claims; it only questions their credibility.
Choice D is incorrect because the distinction between “consistent with” and “supporting” is not relevant to the reasoning flaw here.
Answer: E
Public health official: It is true that the organizers of recent campaigns linking the long-term use of baby formula to immune-system disorders have predicated such alarmist messaging on flimsy evidence in the past. This time, however, their concerns should be taken much more seriously, given that the studies purporting to debunk the link between baby formula and immune disorders have all received substantial funding from manufacturers of baby formula or their suppliers.
The public health official’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of:
A. calling into question a conclusion reached by certain entities simply because those entities have a financial interest in that outcome
B. failing to differentiate between the absence of counterevidence against a claim and the existence of evidence supporting that claim
C. mistaking a rebuttal of a counterargument against a claim for an argument in favor of that claim
D. taking facts that are merely consistent with a claim to be evidence in favor of the claim
E. treating opposition to a claim from potentially biased sources as evidence supporting the claim
The statement positioned as the public health official’s conclusion here is “This time, the campaigners’ concerns should be taken much more seriously”. In other words, the supposed main point is that the campaign’s warning is more likely to be valid now than in earlier cases.
However, the official provides no actual supporting evidence for that claim. There is no direct evidence linking baby formula to later immune-system problems. Instead, the only reasoning offered is that the opposing studies were funded by interested parties.
This creates a clear gap: casting doubt on the opposing evidence does not provide affirmative support for the campaigners’ claim. Even if the opposing studies are biased or flawed, that still does not establish that the campaigners are correct.
Also, the opposing studies are not actually refuted. The argument only raises suspicion about them, but gives no alternative evidence. So the conclusion remains unsupported.
Thus, the flaw is relying solely on attacking the credibility of opposing evidence without providing positive support for the conclusion. That fallacy is captured by choice E.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
Choice A is incorrect because skepticism toward biased sources is reasonable and does not describe a flaw. It also does not address the real issue, which is the lack of supporting evidence.
Choice B is irrelevant because there is counterevidence present, even if it is questionable.
Choice C is incorrect because the argument does not actually refute opposing claims; it only questions their credibility.
Choice D is incorrect because the distinction between “consistent with” and “supporting” is not relevant to the reasoning flaw here.
Answer: E
10 Apr 2026, 21:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can we reframe Option E?
Currently, to me, it appears that "opposition" is coming from manufacturers ("potentially biased sources") and not from the author.
Or am I missing something?
Currently, to me, it appears that "opposition" is coming from manufacturers ("potentially biased sources") and not from the author.
Or am I missing something?
Bunuel
