Critical Reasoning

In response to expressions of public concern, the spokesperson for a manufacturer of insecticides asserts that there is no evidence that any of their products causes health problems in human beings when used in the recommended way. This testimony, if true, might be a substantial reason for believing that the recommended uses insecticides were harmless to humans, if which of the following were also true?

A) Evidence of the harmful effects of insecticides would almost certainly have been discovered by now.
B) The insecticides in question meet all of the recently adopted industry standards for safety.
C) No increased incidence of birth defects has been traced to the use of these insecticides.
D) The vast majority of users of these insecticides are federal agencies, and these agencies carefully monitor the application of these insecticides.
E) The spokesperson for the insecticide manufacturer is speaking honestly.

Ans A

HSPA wrote:In response to expressions of public concern, the spokesperson for a manufacturer of insecticides asserts that there is no evidence that any of their products causes health problems in human beings when used in the recommended way. This testimony, if true, might be a substantial reason for believing that the recommended uses insecticides were harmless to humans, if which of the following were also true?

A) Evidence of the harmful effects of insecticides would almost certainly have been discovered by now.
B) The insecticides in question meet all of the recently adopted industry standards for safety.
C) No increased incidence of birth defects has been traced to the use of these insecticides.
D) The vast majority of users of these insecticides are federal agencies, and these agencies carefully monitor the application of these insecticides.
E) The spokesperson for the insecticide manufacturer is speaking honestly.

I find this question probably containing some typo errors otherwise i believe its a poorly written question...look the red color part that is suspicious and have lack of clarity in terms of meaning. Please check again and confirm...

By the way i googled this question and i find that Op A is completely changed and also the structure is bit different and more clear...here is the question i find:

In response to expressions of public concern, the spokesperson for a manufacturer of insecticides asserts that there is no evidence that any of their products causes health problems in human beings when used in the recommended way.
This testimony, if true, might be a substantial reason for believing that the recommended uses of insecticides were harmless to humans, if which of the following were also true?

A. Evidence of the harmful effects this insecticide would almost certainly have been discovered after three decades of use.
B. The insecticides in question meet all of the recently adopted industry standards for safety.
C. No increased incidence of birth defects has been traced to the use of these insecticides.
D. The vast majority of users of these insecticides are federal agencies, and these agencies carefully monitor
the application of these insecticides.
E. The spokesperson for the insecticide manufacturer is speaking sincerely.

Compare the colored parts from the originally posted question...

here is the link:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/support-problem-t64161.html

Moreover, if i compare Op A posted in @HSPA's post to Op A posted in link given then i believe Op A in HSPA post is much better.

I don't understand why @tani and others agreed to the Op A in question posted in the link. I mean the use of 3 decades is suspicious...we don't know that the insecticide has been used already for 3 decades..it may be possible that insecticide is used only from past 2 decades and in that cases the evidence will appear after another decade...so it can't be correct

That's why HSPA's Op A seems better

A : Correct
B : Incorrect, there could be important standards that are not recent.
C : Incorrect, Birth Defects not discussed in Argument.
D : Incorrect, application is monitored but this does not say that insecticide is harmless. May there are harmful effect but are not reported.
E : Incorrect, it can be true that spokes person is honest in saying that there is no evidence, but there could be cases in which harmful effects are not reported so there is no evidence. A dismisses this case by saying that all harmful effects would have been discovered till now.

In this question, A is the best choice but I believe that the older version is a stronger selection.

If someone told you, problems would have been found by now if the product is bad.

Vs.

If someone told you, the product has been in use for 30 years and no problems found.

I would tend to believe the second speaker more, UNLESS research has been conducted for only 30 years. But that is a different story.

In this questions, C and E can be eliminated easily leaving A,B,D.

B talks about standards(correctly regulated/ or loosely?); eliminate it
D talks about most users. the concern is whether the insecticides are harmful to humans, this answer is not as strong as A.

A holds.

The question here states the In response to expressions of public concern which claims that public concerns are raised because on some evidences found. So, how can answer choice A be the correct answer. Can anyone please explain?

I went for B because the argumengt says The recommended way , and though of industry standards as the recommended way .

But Tani's explanation seems laudable . A is better than B .

Thanks Atul for the link . Great question HSPA , as it gives a thrust to study ...