LSAT Explanation PT 38, S1, Q23: Activist: Food producers irradiate food in

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the activist's argument is flawed because that argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Flaw, and we need to identify the flaw in the activist's argument. Let's first break down the argument's structure:

Premise: Food producers irradiate food to prolong its shelf life.

Premise: Five animal studies investigated the safety of irradiated food for humans and concluded it's safe.

Premise: A panel of independent scientists found these studies to be seriously flawed in their methodology.

Conclusion: Irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.

The activist's argument is flawed because they use the fact that the studies were flawed to conclude that irradiated food is not safe, which is not a reasonable conclusion. The proper conclusion should be that the studies did not prove that irradiated food is safe. To help understand this, imagine a soccer match where the referee made several wrong decisions. Just because the referee made mistakes, it doesn't mean the winning team is a bad team. It simply means the referee's decisions were not reliable.

Now let's evaluate the answer choices:

a) This answer choice correctly identifies the flaw in the activist's argument. They treat the failure to prove the safety of irradiated food (due to flawed studies) as proof that irradiated food is not safe. This is the correct answer.

b) The activist's argument does not use the methodological flaws in past studies as proof that it's currently not possible to devise methodologically adequate alternatives. This answer choice is incorrect.

c) While the activist fails to consider that a non-flawed study might provide weak support for its conclusion, this is not a flaw in the reasoning of the argument. The correct answer choice must describe a flaw in the reasoning, not just something that occurred in the argument. This answer choice is incorrect.

d) The activist does not make a reasoning error by failing to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe for human beings. Animal testing is widely done, and the results are accepted as indicative of possible problems with humans. This answer choice is incorrect.

e) The activist doesn't need to establish that the independent scientists know more about food irradiation than the people who produced the five studies, as they only commented on the methodology of the study, not the irradiated food itself. This answer choice is incorrect.

In conclusion, the correct answer is choice (a), as it accurately identifies the flaw in the activist's argument.