The food irradiators make no assumptions about the scientists’ motives in conducting their experiments.

(A) would match a stimulus where the scientists did find evidence to challenge irradiation’s safety, and then the irradiators dismissed that evidence because of suspected bias.

(B) accuses the irradiators of being biased, which they are. Just having biased motivations isn’t a dealbreaker, though, as long as you support your position with facts.

In other words, the irradiators’ bias doesn’t affect the strength of their position.

This would be relevant if the argument were about whether irradiating food is good or advisable all things considered. But this argument is about the narrow issue of safety, so other non-safety considerations aren’t relevant.

This kind of answer choice is seldom (never?) correct on the LSAT. Complaining about a lack of detail just isn’t the kind of thing that’s usually relevant on this test about logical structure and argument forms.

Regardless of the level of detail they provided, the real trouble with the irradiators’ logic is the leap from “you don’t have evidence irradiation is unsafe” to “irradiation is for sure safe.”

(E) presents textbook phrasing for when the LSAT points to the “lack of support v. false conclusion” common flaw. It says “you didn’t prove me wrong, so I must be right.” We could also have seen “you didn’t prove yourself right, so you must be wrong.”