#16 - Salmonella is a food-borne microorganism that can

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lsatqueen]

Hi,

I do not understand why the correct answer is B. If we are trying to weaken the argument, we should be attacking the conclusion which is the last sentence. How does B weaken the conclusion?

In case you were wondering, I chose E.

Many thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi lsatqueen,

Thanks for the question! You're right that in this question, the conclusion is the last sentence, so that's what we want to weaken. To prephrase it, we're going to be looking for an answer choice that gives a reason why we wouldn't want to replace the previous test with the new one. B does that, although maybe not in the way you were expecting; if B is true, then the new test would give many, many "false alarms" where we're alerted to salmonella unnecessarily. E, on the other hand, doesn't weaken; we're talking about testing food samples, here, not people who have been made sick, so it ends up being kind of irrelevant whether the symptoms of salmonella might be mistaken. This one is tricky, but hopefully that helps a bit!

[Anali]

Hi!

I narrowed this question down to A and B, since they both discussed the new test. However, I went with A because B would seem to strengthen the conclusion by suggesting that the test identifies the slightest traces of Salmonella, compared to the older tests which would "miss unusual strains of the microorganism". Is A incorrect because "similar bacteria" is not relevant to the argument?

Thank you

[bk1111]

Hi!

I narrowed this question down to A and B, since they both discussed the new test. However, I went with A because B would seem to strengthen the conclusion by suggesting that the test identifies the slightest traces of Salmonella, compared to the older tests which would "miss unusual strains of the microorganism". Is A incorrect because "similar bacteria" is not relevant to the argument?

Thank you

Hi, I would also like to know why A isn't the best answer. However, I do understand why B is correct. Essentially, B suggests the new test detects many false positives, making the new test an unreliable indicator of detecting salmonella that is harmful to people. The fact that the stimulus says the old test can miss unusual strains does not negate answer choice B's relevance because "can" is relatively weak whereas B says it does salmonella at detect low levels.

[James Finch]

Hi BK,

The reason (A) is incorrect is that the stimulus is only concerned with Salmonella organisms, not, other similar bacteria, which may or may not be harmless. So if we used (A) to attack the conclusion that public health officials should replace previous Salmonella tests with this new one, it doesn't actually weaken. It could, potentially, if we knew that similar bacteria were also harmful, but the stimulus is only concerned with the harm caused by different strains of Salmonella .

Hope that clears things up!

[Lsat180Please]

Hi! I got to B because I thought that it was weakening the causal relationship by showing the cause without the effect ie. the cause is salmonella and the effects are intestinal illnesses. Thus because answer B says that the test can show the cause (salmonella) without its effects to likely occur, it weakens the CE relationship. Is this correct reasoning? thanks!

[Ben DiFabbio]

Hi! I got to B because I thought that it was weakening the causal relationship by showing the cause without the effect ie. the cause is salmonella and the effects are intestinal illnesses. Thus because answer B says that the test can show the cause (salmonella) without its effects to likely occur, it weakens the CE relationship. Is this correct reasoning? thanks!

Hi there,

I think your analysis would be right on if the conclusion of the argument went something like, "Therefore, salmonella causes intestinal illnesses." But as it stands, the argument does not turn on a cause and effect issue. The conclusion is that public health officials should replace the old test with the new test.

The reason answer choice B) weakens the argument is that, if true, it would make the new test pretty much useless! If the new test tells us that there is salmonella in our food even when there is such a small amount that it doesn't pose any health risk to people, then it would lead people to avoid foods that were perfectly safe.

I hope that helps!

[BMM2021]

Hi,

How should we differentiate between worthwhile assumptions and extraneous assumptions for these kinds of situations? I was stuck between A and B, and thought that each required an assumption that wasn't addressed by the stimulus.

A requires us to assume that similar bacteria cause similar harm and thus elicit similar concern from public health officials. I also understood that we were only concerned with Salmonella tests, and thus finding other bacteria is basically out of scope. However, I found the assumption required by B - that for some reason being too careful when it comes to detecting Salmonella, which is "sometimes fatal," would weaken the argument from the perspective of public health officials, who I think we must assume care more about health than the local food market - to be less plausible than the idea that the health officials would want a Salmonella test to detect similar bacteria.

Ultimately, I'm not sure how to pick one set of assumptions over the other, but given that A includes out of scope subject material, is that the defining difference here?

Thanks,
Brian

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, Brian: it's the "out of scope" element of answer A that kills it off. This is an argument about what we should do about salmonella, and not about any other type of organism, so failing to detect those other organisms does nothing to the argument. For all we know, the current tests for salmonella also fail to detect similar bacteria!

It's not much of an assumption to get that answer B, if true, would mean there will be a lot of false alarms. To weaken an argument we only need to find some reason to object to it, and the test being overly sensitive could be a problem and give us a reason to object. It doesn't even have to mean that there WILL be a lot of false alarms; just introducing that element of doubt about whether switching to the new test would be a good idea is enough.

And we don't have to assume anything about what public health officials care about, either, because it's just about whether switching would cause ANY kind of problem for ANYONE affected by the testing, including consumers, food sellers, food producers, etc. An overly sensitive test sounds like a potential disaster for everyone in the food supply chain! It's enough to make us ask whether switching is a good idea, and that's all the doubt we need. The conclusion is weakened!