#4 - Safety inspector: The number of laboratory samples

[ChicaRosa]

Is answer choice E correct because he doesn't address address the safety inspectors concern about the dangers of having an increase of samples that are being sent?

At first I thought he did address it because he says there hasn't been any accidents from it's 20 yr long run but it excludes the possibility that an accident can happen. Just because there hasn't been an accident doesn't mean that one can't happen. Kind of like applying Murphy's Law of Probability.

Is my analysis correct?

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Chica,

What you wrote in the first paragraph is correct. His response is flawed because the Biologist completely ignores the reason the Safety Inspector cites to support his recommendation that the use of the delivery service be limited.

Your analysis in the second paragraph seems to veer somewhat off-course. This is not a case of "just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen" (actually an absence of evidence kind of situation paraphrased there). This is a case of someone (the Biologist) completely ignoring evidence about how circumstances have changed.

I hope this helps.