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 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.

[spoiler]OA later.
Source : 800score tests
Stuck between A/B/D[/spoiler]

The spokesman's assertion relies on evidence so I would go with the only answer that alludes to evidence = A

D is out because the stimulus says "if used as recommended". We are not judging whether it will be used as recommended.

I would go with A. If all harmful effects are known then there is no possibility that new product will cause any harm.

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:The spokesman's assertion relies on evidence so I would go with the only answer that alludes to evidence = A

D is out because the stimulus says "if used as recommended". We are not judging whether it will be used as recommended.

Thanks Tani.
OA is A only.

But why B is wrong ?
It is also giving support to the spokesperson claim.

reply2spg wrote:I would go with A. If all harmful effects are known then there is no possibility that new product will cause any harm.

there is no relation for 'new product' in the argument.

B is problematic because we don't know whether the industry standards are any good. Thirty years of safety is a better guarantee.

I try to answer why B is wrong. I may be wrong but what I think is though insecticides follow all standards, there may be possibility that insecticides may do some harm (which is unknown yet.) to human being. If company knows all harmful effects then company will recommend ways of how to use those insecticides.

paes wrote:

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:The spokesman's assertion relies on evidence so I would go with the only answer that alludes to evidence = A

D is out because the stimulus says "if used as recommended". We are not judging whether it will be used as recommended.

Thanks Tani.
OA is A only.

But why B is wrong ?
It is also giving support to the spokesperson claim.

Sudhansh,

A also uses the word 'almost certainly' -> it means that he is not 100% sure. There might be some -ve effects which can be discovered after 3 decades.

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:B is problematic because we don't know whether the industry standards are any good. Thirty years of safety is a better guarantee.

Thanks Tani.

I agree that 'almost certainly' does not mean 100% but it definitely mean that 'tends to 100%' or very very close to 100%. B does not tell us anything like that. B is very open to attack. It just tells us that product meets 'industry standards for safety'.

What are those standards? As per the standards what is the minimum testing period to decide whether product is safe? Does that mean any other products, which causes little harm does not follow industry standards (I know that other products are out of scope). I used these questions to eliminate B.

On the other hand, A tells us that extensive testing has been carried out and almost all harmful effects are known. Also, as per the passage and option A, it makes very clear that all (very close to 100%) effects and their remedies (recommended way) are known. So A makes the best option here.

In my previous post sorry I mention 'new product', but I meant 'insecticides'

Can you please let us know your reasoning why you think B is better than A?

paes wrote:Sudhansh,

A also uses the word 'almost certainly' -> it means that he is not 100% sure. There might be some -ve effects which can be discovered after 3 decades.

Thanks Sudhanshu.

Your reasoning is good to eliminate B.
Actually I was confused with the word 'almost certainly' in A.
I thought that because B : is meeting the standards, so it gives us another reason to agree with the spokesperson.

One more thing, as stated by Tani, I would like to mention again about A.
See the key word in the argument :

.....that there is no evidence ....


A agives support to above key claim, hence it is supporting the argument.
[While B is not saying anything about the evidence]

Adding on to that, B says " recently adopted standards". So this gives a possibilty ; is that standards are very stringent or relaxed? Or is that formed in favour of the company (say if company president is the chief of standards issuing company)

SO B is not STRONGER than A.

pick A

I think I am in a bigger trouble.

I chose D.

I read through the posts, But I am unable to figure out what A exactly means.

Can someone help me in understanding the whole passage.

I eliminated A in the first go which is dangerous.

D is out because the users are irrelevant - we want to know if the product is safe. A simply says "hey guys, it's been safe for thirty years!" Pretty good evidence that there are no major problems.

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:D is out because the users are irrelevant - we want to know if the product is safe. A simply says "hey guys, it's been safe for thirty years!" Pretty good evidence that there are no major problems.

Hi Tani,

I dont know why. But,Still I am unable to decipher that meaning from A. I read it atleast 50 times.

Evidence of the harmful effects this insecticide would almost certainly have been discovered after three decades of use.

What has been discovered here??

Is the sentence missing any preposition?