PT38.S1.Q23 - Activist: Food producers irradiate food

ec8282013

The correct answer is A. I see why it is correct but I wonder if this answer choice makes an additional assumption that is not explicitly stated.

(A) says "failure to prove a claim"

We're only told that "these studies... seriously flawed in their methodology." We aren't explicitly told that therefore this experiment failed to prove the claim. Aren't we making an additional assumption that flawed methodology = failed to prove claim? Or even more, we're assuming that these independent scientists were can actually be trusted?

I can see why B, C, D, and E are incorrect. But aren't we making additional assumptions for (A)?

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-23/

FixedDice

We're only told that "these studies... seriously flawed in their methodology." We aren't explicitly told that therefore this experiment failed to prove the claim. Aren't we making an additional assumption that flawed methodology = failed to prove claim?

Flawed methodology means that the researches in question failed to prove their claims. So it's not so much a (questionable) assumption as it is a very, very, very reasonable (if not valid) conclusion to make.

Suppose Trisha, a S.J.D. candidate, produces a paper about the Supreme Court's stance on the Second Amendment during the nineteenth century. The paper is spectacular: its range of sources is breathtaking, its analysis flawless, its prose absorbing, and its conclusion revolutionary. The only problem is that Trisha - being the brilliant klutz she is - selected Supreme Court cases from 1901 to 2000. Given this flawed methodology, would you say that Trisha did not fail to prove her conclusion about how the Supreme Court viewed the Second Amendment during the designated century (whatever it may be)?

Or even more, we're assuming that these independent scientists were can actually be trusted?

That sounds dangerously like paranoia, possibly caused by excessive LSAT studying.

Seriously though, one accepts whatever the speaker/author reports about others. That's how it was for approximately three decades, and I don't think it will change anytime soon (I hope not).

_____Wale

It may help to focus on the conclusion drawn and the reason for the conclusion

Premise: Panel of independent scientists found that tests conducted to determine the safety of irradiated foods were flawed.
Conclusion: Therefore, Irradiated food is not safe to eat

The activists is assuming that a flawed method guarantees a wrong conclusion. But it is quite possible to use a flawed method to arrive at the right conclusion. Merely pointing out the flaw in a certain method does not prove that results of that method are also flawed/wrong.

Answer choice A basically states that "the activist is treating the flaws found in the methodology of the test as proof that the results of the tests as false."