LSAT 38, Logical Reasoning I, Q23, LSATHacks

LR Question 23 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Irradiated food isn’t safe.

REASONING: The studies that found that it was safe were flawed.

ANALYSIS: Because the studies were flawed, we no longer have evidence irradiated food is safe. But we also don’t have any evidence it is unsafe. We know nothing about irradiated food.

We have no clue about how safe or unsafe it is, so we can’t make any conclusions.

The correct answer uses abstract language. Proof of denial of a claim is another way of saying: “you’re wrong! And I have proof.” 

___________

1. CORRECT. Failure to prove a claim is: no longer being able to prove it is safe. Proof of a denial of a claim is: It must be unsafe. 
2. The argument didn’t say anything about future studies.
3. The argument didn’t claim any study supported its conclusion.
4. This would be an argument against the studies that concluded that irradiated food was safe. 
5. It doesn’t matter if the independent scientists know more. It only matters if they’re able to detect flaws in the method of the study. You can detect flaws in the method of a study without knowing much about the subject matter.