BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

LSAT

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:26 am
Thanked: 16 times

by student22 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:49 am
E.

Let me try to explain why.

1. The scientists tested food safety after radiation.
2. They couldn't find anything to show that it's dangerous.
3. People said, you see, that means that food is safe after being irradiated.

The problem is this.

What if the scientists missed something when they were testing it. Or there techniques were wrong?

Just because they didn't find anything, doesn't mean that it's safe. That's what E is trying to say.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:22 am
IMO C
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pmFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 128 times

by grockit_andrea » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:31 am
I'd go with E as well. As both Donald Rumsfeld and Gin Rummy of The Boondocks have said: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." That is, the fact that you can't prove something is true doesn't by itself constitute evidence that it is true. The scientists' inability to prove that irradiated food is unsafe doesn't mean that it IS safe; maybe they just need more studies or different methods.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 9 times

by kaulnikhil » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:21 am
grockit_andrea wrote:I'd go with E as well. As both Donald Rumsfeld and Gin Rummy of The Boondocks have said: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." That is, the fact that you can't prove something is true doesn't by itself constitute evidence that it is true. The scientists' inability to prove that irradiated food is unsafe doesn't mean that it IS safe; maybe they just need more studies or different methods.
OA E..why C is wrong?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 amFollowed by: 64 members
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:34 pm
Supports claim that irradiation is a safe practice, not the best possible practice, so objections unrelated to safety are irrelevant.
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1