Public health official: It is true that the organizers of recent

Question

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

V26-28

Carcass · Answer

Technically this time the argument should be taking much more seriously because

disorders have all received substantial funding from manufacturers of baby formula or their suppliers.

This is far away to be proven or in other words we have a serious bias from industry.

And the argument is weaponizing this bias to demonstrate that the link is substantial.

E should be the answer

PS: In my view, this is not a Medium question but more on the advanced side. The tag may be updated to 605 at least

Edskore · Answer

Key concept: Critical Reasoning — Flaw in reasoning (Weaken / Flawed Reasoning).

This is a beautifully constructed flaw question. The answer is E, and here's exactly why.

The argument structure:
Premise: Campaigns linking baby formula to immune disorders have been based on flimsy evidence before.
Premise: BUT this time, the studies that DEBUNK the link were all funded by formula manufacturers.
Conclusion: Therefore, this time the concerns should be taken much more seriously.

The official is essentially saying: "The opposition to our claim comes from biased sources — so the claim must be valid."

Why this is flawed:
Showing that counterevidence is unreliable does NOT give you positive evidence for a claim. There's a crucial logical gap:
- Biased funding → the debunking studies may be untrustworthy ✓
- Untrustworthy debunking studies → the original claim is now supported ✗

That last step is the leap. Just because the "anti-claim" evidence is tainted doesn't mean there's any actual evidence FOR the claim. The official mistakes "our opponent's argument is weak" for "our side is therefore right." This is exactly what E says: treating opposition from potentially biased sources as evidence supporting the claim.

Why not A? A says the official is calling into question a conclusion simply because the entity has financial interest. But the official isn't attacking a conclusion — the manufacturers here funded the debunking studies. The financial conflict concerns the research methodology, not a conclusion the manufacturers are drawing.

Why not C? C would apply if the official was treating a rebuttal of a counterargument as a full argument in favor. That's similar but misses the key issue: it's the SOURCE of the opposition (biased funding) that the official is pointing to, not just the fact of rebuttal.

E nails it: the official treats the fact that opposition comes from a biased source as if that constitutes evidence FOR the link. It doesn't.

Takeaway: On Flaw questions, always map the exact logical gap between the premises and the conclusion — then match it to the answer choice that describes that specific gap.

— Kavya | GMAT Focus 725 (99th percentile)

RonPurewal · Answer

Official Explanation:

The statement positioned as the public health official’s conclusion here is “This time,   concerns should be taken much more seriously”. In other words, the supposed main point in this set of statements is that the central warning of the campaign is more likely to be valid this time than in previous cases, when the campaigners’ “alarmist” claims were based on “flimsy evidence”.

Speaking of flimsy evidence, though... The official does not provide  ANY  actual, affirmative reasoning in support of the idea that the campaigners’ warnings are well grounded. The only reasoning provided here is that the  counter evidence out there—the work held out as debunking the connection between formula feeding and immune-system issues—was funded by entities with a direct financial stake in dismissing that connection. The problem, of course, is that we aren’t given any reason to  believe the campaigners  here—in other words, we’re not provided with any evidence  linking  baby formula with immune problems later on. The official’s purported conclusion has no supporting statements at all.

Note further that the countering studies aren’t even refuted here. We’re told of a conflict of interest that warrants skepticism towards those studies, but not of any actual rebuttals to them. And even if the countering studies  were  actually shown to be fatally flawed, we would still have nothing to back up the claims of the campaign itself.

In any case, the existence of ostensible counterevidence from biased sources—so, essentially, the justification for a certain amount of skepticism towards the other side—is the only “support” provided for the claim here.  That fallacy is summarized by choice E.

INCORRECT ANSWERS:

Choice A is wrong because it doesn’t even describe a logical flaw or fallacy in the first place. Preemptive skepticism of claims advanced by anyone with a material stake to gain from the acceptance of those claims is  good, well-informed  critical thinking! Moreover, the actual central flaw of this “argument”—the complete lack of actual support for its central claim—is not addressed by choice A.

Since there  is  counterevidence in play here—however dubious the source of the counterarguments might be—the notion of “absence of counterevidence”, and therefore choice B, is irrelevant to this problem.

While casting doubt on the credibility of entities opposing the campaigners’ claim, the official does not  rebut  or  disprove  any opposing claims or arguments, so choice C is unfounded.

Two or more statements are  consistent  if there is any possibility that both/all of them could be true at the same time—regardless of whether any logical relationship might exist between/among them. The distinction between information  consistent with  a claim (which could support it, be irrelevant to it, or even cast doubt on it) and information  supporting  a claim is not applicable to any of the statements given here, so choice D has no support.

Public health official: It is true that the organizers of recent

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

Public health official: It is true that the organizers of recent

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