Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardFlaw in the Reasoning

Medical Researcher: The experimental drug Lexicon has demonstrated a remarkable ability to neutralize the synthetic pathogen V-7 in laboratory settings. Based on this, several public health officials are lobbying for its immediate mass production. This enthusiasm is unwarranted. Historical data reveals that of all the experimental drugs that successfully neutralized synthetic pathogens in laboratories over the past twenty years, fewer than ten percent were ultimately approved as safe for public consumption. Consequently, there is a greater than ninety percent probability that Lexicon will fail to neutralize V-7 in human patients.

The reasoning in the medical researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument does which one of the following?

  1. A
    fails to distinguish between a condition that is necessary for a drug to be approved for public consumption and a condition that is sufficient for such approval
  2. overlooks the possibility that a drug can successfully neutralize a pathogen in human patients even if it is not ultimately approved as safe for public consumptionAnswer
  3. C
    attempts to undermine the public health officials' position by criticizing their enthusiasm rather than addressing the scientific merit of their lobbying efforts
  4. D
    takes for granted that a correlation between a drug's success in laboratory settings and its failure in human safety trials indicates a causal relationship
  5. E
    presumes, without providing justification, that the historical failure rate of a broad category of experimental drugs accurately determines the probability of success for one specific drug within that category

Answer

The correct answer is the option that points out the author's failure to recognize that a drug might successfully neutralize a pathogen but still be deemed unsafe for public consumption.
The correct answer accurately describes the severe vulnerability in the argument. The researcher's evidence establishes that over 90 percent of similar drugs were not 'approved as safe for public consumption.' From this statistic, the researcher concludes there is a 90 percent chance Lexicon will 'fail to neutralize V-7 in human patients.' This illicitly equates a lack of overall safety approval with a specific failure to neutralize the pathogen. It is entirely possible for a drug to successfully eradicate a virus in humans but still be rejected for public use because it causes severe side effects. By ignoring this possibility, the argument commits a fatal scope shift flaw.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Lexicon has a greater than 90 percent probability of failing to neutralize V-7 in human patients.
This is the final claim the author is trying to prove, marked by the indicator word 'Consequently'.
2
Identify the premise supporting this conclusion.
Fewer than 10 percent of experimental drugs that succeed in the lab are ultimately approved as safe for public consumption (meaning over 90 percent are not approved as safe).
This is the statistical evidence provided to justify the conclusion.
3
Compare the language in the premise to the language in the conclusion to spot the gap.
The premise discusses drugs not being 'approved as safe,' while the conclusion discusses drugs failing to 'neutralize' the pathogen.
Logical reasoning flaws frequently involve a subtle shift in terminology or scope between the evidence and the conclusion.
4
Formulate the flaw based on this gap.
The author assumes that failing to be approved as safe is identical to failing to neutralize the pathogen, overlooking the possibility that a drug could neutralize the pathogen but fail safety approval due to severe side effects.
Identifying this unstated, flawed assumption directly leads to the correct description of the argument's vulnerability.

Key Concept

Scope Shift / Unstated Assumptions
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic