Strange "Most Strongly Supported" Question From "Peterson" Website

kylelanders

Hi everyone,

I came across this sample "most strongly supported" question online. I found no record of it as an official LSAT question, so I suspect it's created by the website. I am having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind the credited answer (C) and would like some outsider advice on my own reasoning.

Here is the question:

When pregnant lab rats are given caffeine equivalent to the amount a human would consume by drinking six cups of coffee per day, an increase in the incidence of birth defects results. When asked if the government would require warning labels on products containing caffeine, a spokesperson stated that it would not because the government would lose credibility if the finding of these studies were to be refuted in the future.

1. Which of the following is most strongly suggested by the government's statement above?

(A) A warning that applies to a small population is inappropriate.
(B) Very few people drink as many as six cups of coffee a day.
(C) There are doubts about the conclusive nature of studies on animals.
(D) Studies on rats provide little data about human birth defects.
(E) The seriousness of birth defects involving caffeine is not clear.

I eliminated all but C and D, and my reasoning for weighing D over C is as follows:

I took C to mean "animals" as "all animals", in which case the statement can be negated and still be consistent with the government statement (if there aren't doubts about the conc nature of all animal studies, it simply means some are not... we don't know if this addresses rats in particular at all)

D did not seem great either but I figured it was better than C

However, if C said "some animals" then I would be completely in agreement.

Any input would be much appreciated, as well as whether you think the question is poorly devised or allows too much ambiguity (I have yet to come across an LSAT question like this).

Sami

That's exactly why you don't need to be working on questions that are not real LSAT questions from administered tests. LSAT has 83 PT's, that's plenty of materials.

I guess C is less wrong than all others but like you said its too broad for MSS where the answer choices need to be able to be verified by the stimulus.

We know the government doesn't want to lose credibility just in case findings are refuted in future. But its in the nature of scientific method for findings to get refuted when new phenomena that cannot be explained by old ones occur. So the stimulus just seems odd for that reason alone and since LSAT is all about scientific method, doing studies the right way, I just don't see how this stimulus is useful. One we just cannot infer what answer choice C is saying from the stimulus. So if it was the case that the government would have doubts about conclusive nature of studies on animals in general, then government would never be expected to make warning labels based on studies. Which makes the stimulus more paradoxical than anything.

The only MSS answer I can think of is if the study was done correctly then the government cares more about losing credibility than put warning labels on packaging that could potentially help its people.