Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case

Question

Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case. Now suppose the question arises whether a given food additive is safe. At that point, it would be neither known to be safe nor known not to be safe. By the characterization above, scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe. But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise. But no scientist could assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and not safe: so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong.

Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?

Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?

(A) A general statement is argued to be false by showing that it has deliberately been formulated to mislead.

(B) A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.

(C) A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.

(D) A general statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true.

(E) A statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that it supports no independently testable inferences.

BhishmaNaidu99 · Answer

Scientists are said if no proof for something = Then it is not the case., 
So speaker takes an example to see whether this statement works well. 
He finds out, using the statement applied to an example gives two different possible outcomes, which are not specific and contradict to each other and doesn't help to conclude anything.

A. Nothing is said to be done deliberately, so out.
B. OK, this says ,If taken true , statement leads to unlikely solutions. 
C. There is no second statement made in the argument, there is a example to verify which has nothing to contradict directly
D. The option says , there are instances where the statement is true and false, wrong .
E. Independently testable inferences ?? nothing has been mentioned about this in the argument.

IMO It's B

If there are any corrections in my reasoning, reply to my post, TQ

bidskamikaze · Answer

Reminds me of Schrodinger's cat

(A) A general statement is argued to be false by showing that it has deliberately been formulated to mislead . - There is no reason to believe that the argument has deliberately been formulated to mislead. (B) A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences. - Correct. Statement: something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case. This statement has been shown to lead to implausible consequences (C) A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true. - - There is only one statement: something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case (D) A general statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true. - All the argument says is that there is no plausible consequence of the statement. It doesn't tell us that there are as many specific instances in which it is false as there are instances in which it is true. (E) A statement is shown to be uninformative by showing that it supports no independently testable inferences. - Nope. What I can infer is that we can only AFTER testing can we tell whether the additive is safe or not. Answer B.

SatvikVedala · Answer

At first, Options mention statement is argued to be false or is uninformative

Out of false & uninformative, false is the answer to go with since argument states “so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong “

Also, argument states “By the characterization above, scientists would assume the additive not to be safe because it has not been proven safe. But they would also assume it to be safe because it has not been proven otherwise”

So considering food additive is not safe (without proof) will also raise assumption that it is safe since it (additive) is not proven safe –not convincible/ reasonable situation

Hence Answer B

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case

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

Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case

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