A group of scientists who have done research on the health effects of food irradiation has discovered no evidence cha...
BrendanJune 26, 2017
"Contradicting" ????
I understand why E is right but the word contradicting really threw me off. Can someone explain how a lack of evidence for a claim contradicts that claim? How could the scientists have possibly contradicted their claim if they provided zero evidence that irradiated food is unsafe?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Writing this post so I can alert the instructors. Thank you
MehranAugust 31, 2017
Hey @Brendan, thanks for your posts and apologies for the delayed reply. I think you're reading the word "contradict" incorrectly in context.
Answer choice (E) says that the food irradiation supporters' reasoning is flawed because they "use the lack of evidence" (i.e., the fact that researchers have "discovered no evidence challenging" the safety of food irradiation) "contradicting a claim" (the claim being that "food irradiation is safe") as "conclusive evidence for that claim" (i.e., as "certain proof that food irradiation is a safe practice").
Does that help? Let us know if you have additional questions.
jamesioApril 28, 2018
E was very hard to comprehend, and I ended up picking A.
My thought process was that the scientist conducted the research for discovering the "health effects"... And the supporters are claiming that based on their research "food irradiation is a SAFE practice.
A states "assume that the scientists doing the research set out to prove that food irradiation is an UNSAFE practice"..
Based on the stimulus, does this not mean that the supporters incorrectly based their decision?? "Supporters of food irradiation have cited this research as proof that food irradiation is a safe practice."
Is A incorrect because it doesn't matter what type of research they were doing, as long as they concluded what they did?
Hope to hear something soon.
Maybeillgetlucky May 1, 2019
why not C?
health effects do not equal safe practise...
RaviMay 1, 2019
@jamesio and @maybeillgetlucky,
Great questions. Let's go over (A) and (C).
(A) says, "assume that the scientists doing the research set out to prove that food irradiation is an unsafe practice"
This is not a flaw in the reasoning of the supporters. Regardless of whatever the initial intention of the research was, the things that we are concerned with are the results and what they tell us. Thus, (A) is incorrect.
(C) says, "overlook the possibility that objections about safety are not the only possible objections to the practice"
(C) is incorrect because the whole argument is about safety. We do not care about other potential objections in addition to safety. Thus, we can get rid of this choice.
Does that make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
