Q23 - Activist: Food producers irradiate

[b91302310]

The correct answer is A. However, I was wondering why answer choice C is wrong. It indicates that even a study whose methodology has no serious flaws nonetheless might provide only weak support for its conclusion. So, could I make the inference that even if a methodology is flawed, it could lead a strong conclusion? Thus, it refutes the reasoning made by the Activist. Could anyone explain more on answer choice C and resolve my concern ? Thanks in advance.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question.

The simple answer to your question is, "no." We cannot reinterpret answer choice (C) to be saying that even if a methodology is flawed, it could lead to a strong conclusion. This would be committing a negation on the information implied in answer choice (C).

We know that there is a flaw in the methodology of the study. So we haven't proven that irradiated food is safe. But that doesn't mean that the food is not safe - the conclusion of this argument. So the flaw is that this argument is that it treats a failure to prove a claim as proof that the claim is false. Best expressed in answer choice (A).

(B) is unsupported. The conclusion of the argument is not that it is currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternatives.
(C) is irrelevant. The study did have flaws, whereas this answer choice is about studies that do not.
(D) would not challenge the conclusion. Had the argument concluded that the food is safe, this might have been a better answer choice.
(E) is totally irrelevant.

Does that help you see answer choice (C) a bit more clearly? I know it's tempting, but you took a small wrong turn when thinking about the meaning and implications of that answer choice.

[b91302310]

Thanks! I got it. I think your response is quite useful because there are such answer choices as this one in different types of question.

So based on my understanding of answer choice (C) :
The negation of the statement in answer choice C will be a mistaken negation in the conditional reasoning. Therefore, the inference could not be made for methodology with serious flaw based on the statement regarding methodology without serious flaw.

Is that correct?

[Greatsk8erman]

So, the scientists having flawed methodology = failure to prove? I thought this was reading too far into it, I guess not.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Think about it this way...

If the study had a flawed methodology then you would not be able to trust the results of the study. The study would be flawed and therefore unreliable. Well the study claims that irradiated food is safe. So we've failed to prove that irradiated food is safe. But that's different then proving that irradiated food is definitely not safe.

It can tie you in a know, I know... the simple answer to your question is "yes." Thanks for posting on the forum!

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Matt,
I actually thought this sentence "However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology" was attacking the character -- so I was looking for a flaw that said something like "attacks the opponent's character" because I thought the part about "to be seriously flawed in their methodology" was describing how these scients are known to be flawed in their methodology, but we can't use this as evidence to conclude that it is NOT safe for human consumption.

I chose (A) because (B) through (D) clearly didn't seem like something close to what I was looking for, but the only reason I picked (A) was because of the latter part that matched up: "constituting proof of the denial of that claim". I guess my question is not so much about why (A) is correct but rather what the "seriously flawed in their methodology" really refers to.. Does my question make sense? I'm basically confused since I understood it as something along the lines of "these studies were found by people who are known to be seriously flawed in their methodology" and not as "these studies were found to be seriously flawed in their methodology" because it says "found BY".. I hope I'm getting my message through..

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks! I got it. I think your response is quite useful because there are such answer choices as this one in different types of question.

So based on my understanding of answer choice (C) :
The negation of the statement in answer choice C will be a mistaken negation in the conditional reasoning. Therefore, the inference could not be made for methodology with serious flaw based on the statement regarding methodology without serious flaw.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Let's take (C). It says the following: "~Flaws → Weak Support." From this, all we can infer is that if it does NOT have weak support then it is, in fact, flawed. What you were doing was basically seeing "~A → B" and inferring "A → ~B." This is a logical no-no and is often tested.

I also just wanted to add that (E) is wrong because we don't actually care about if the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than the people who performed the studies. After all, they aren't claiming knowledge on the subject, but rather, the methodology.