Q3 - A group of scientists who

[Bindoo08]

Hey,
I don't understand why E is the correct answer. I think B is also the flaw in the argument. Help plzzz!!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

So, the premise here is that scientists have not found evidence that irradiated food is unsafe. From this, supporters of food irradiation conclude that irradiated food is definitely, certainly safe.

The gap here is pretty clear: just because we haven't found proof of something doesn't mean that the opposite is definitely true. All it means is that we don't know conclusively one way or the other.

(E) is correct because it identifies this flaw. The lack of evidence of irradiated food being dangerous is not conclusive evidence that irradiated food is in fact safe.

Now, why is (B) incorrect? Well, the fact that a party has an interest in an argument isn't the same thing as a flaw in its reasoning. It might be a reason to make a particular argument, but it's not a logical flaw. For instance, if Mothers Against Drunk Driving cited evidence that driving drunk is incredibly dangerous, we wouldn't dismiss their argument because they're biased against drunk driving. We'd have to decide whether their conclusion followed from the facts they cite.

(A) is incorrect because the scientists' goals are irrelevant.

(C) is out of scope; the argument is specifically about whether food irradiation is unsafe.

(D) is incorrect because there is no minimum level of detail that premises must meet.

Does that clear this one up for you?