#7 - Scientist: In our study, chemical R did not cause

[brcibake]

I was between B An E but went with B. They both seem to be stating similar ideas. What makes E a stronger answer?
Thank you

[James Finch]

Hi BR,

The issue with answer choice (B) is that the statement about R not causing cancer in rats doesn't actually support the idea that we cannot extrapolate those results to humans. All it serves to do is give weak evidence that R might be safe for humans, because it has not caused cancer in rats.

Answer choice (E) correctly describes the statement as being used to warn against using it to draw the conclusion that R is safe for humans.

Hope this helps!

[EmilyLSAT22]

Hi, how does answer choice B not support the idea that the test results obtained from lab rats cannot be extrapolated to humans? Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Emily,

Take another look at the question for this one. You're being asked to identify the role played by that first sentence. It doesn't support the contention in B, because we don't have any idea whether chemical R causes cancer in humans. So, B can't be correct. Instead, knowing chemical R is safe for rats doesn't tell us one way or the other whether it is safe for humans.

[sxzhao]

I eliminated E to start because it says "...to support the conclusion that R is safe for humans" becasue I thought it's very clear that the conclusion of the argument is "R is NOT safe for humans"

To me, the role of the claim is something like to state a fact that appears to counter the conclusion - that R is not safe for humans - which additional evidence helps resolve

Any tip on how to avoid setting such trap for myself?

[Dana D]

Hey Sxzhao,

This sounds like a comprehension problem - I recommend making sure you really understand the content of the stimulus before moving on to the question and answer choices. Also do a double check to ensure you are reading closely - the author doesn't actually say chemical R is not safe for humans, only that we cannot know whether it is safe or unsafe based on the results from rats alone. That is their conclusion, and the premise to support that idea is the fact that humans and rats have a different lifespan, with some carcinogenic substances causing cancer in humans but not rats. Answer (E) correctly identifies that the rat results alone are insufficient - that is the author's conclusion as well.

Hope that helps!