PrepTest 114

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Prolong shelf life
Approach - Irradiate food

Study - Irradiated food is safe for humans

Rebuttal - That study was flawed, so irradiated food isn't safe for humans

Answer Anticipation:
When we're dealing with an Errors in Reasoning question, it's important to look for elements that suggest one of the common flaws present in this question type. Here, there are two.

First, there's a study. These are associated with Sampling flaws and Correlation/Causation flaws. However, the study isn't really discussed enough for us to know if it featured a Sampling flaw or a correlation, so we can't anticipate either.

Second, the conclusion reaches the polar opposite conclusion as the opposing point—the study says the irradiated food is safe for humans, but the Activist says it's not. When that happens, we should always check for an Absence of Evidence flaw—does the author reach the opposite conclusion by highlighting a flaw in the opposing point rather than offering support for her own conclusion?

And that's what happens here! The Activist reaches the conclusion that irradiated food isn't safe for humans because the studies showing that it is safe were flawed. That shows that the food might not be safe for humans since the evidence showing it was is flawed, but it doesn't prove that it isn't safe for humans. Let's find an answer highlighting this common flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is the abstract description of the Absence of Evidence flaw. The failure to prove that irradiated food is safe (because the study doing so was flawed) is treated as proving that irradiated food isn't safe.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument reaches the polar opposite conclusion of the opposing point, consider an Absence of Evidence flaw. If the conclusion is based on a flaw or shortcoming in that opposing point, then you've identified the correct flaw.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that a certain view is false, not that it's impossible to prove whether or not it's true.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't describe the argument, where a study was flawed.

Incorrect. The opposing point relies on animal studies to justify a conclusion about humans, so that viewpoint fails to consider this possibility. In siding against the results of the study, the Activist isn't ignoring this possibility.

Incorrect. The independent scientists don't need to be experts in food irradiation in order to determine whether a study's methodologies were flawed—they could be experts in experimental design.