Animal feed should not include

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct61% picked this

   Potatoes are not normally a part of the diet of

   Why this is right

   This answer suggests an Alternate Explanation for why the rats in the GMO potato group got gut / immune problems: it wasn't the fact that the potatoes were GMO; it was just the fact they were potatoes. In order for this answer to make sense, we have to assume that the other group was not fed potatoes (of the non-GMO kind, since they got all non-GMO food). Are we allowed to assume that? Yes, it turns out, if we hunt for details. The non-GMO group was fed "a normal diet of foods that had no GMO". At first I just interpreted that "normal" to mean "you know, no GMO in it!". But it looks like LSAT is using that qualifier to pair up with the word "normally" in this answer choice, in order to silently establish that the untroubled group of rats was not fed potatoes of any kind. This type of Alternate Explanation is particularly sneaky, because if we got too loose with our understanding of the Author's Story, we might just think, 'He's saying the potatoes did it.' And this answer, as an Alternate Explanation, is also saying "the potatoes did it". But it's still a distinct explanation. The author thinks the potatoes were a problem because they had GMO ingredients, whereas this answer is suggesting the potatoes would be a problem whether they were GMO or not.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   61%
2. B

   No Impact2% picked this

   The rats tended to eat more of the genetically modified potatoes at the beginning of the 30 days than they did toward

   This answer doesn't quite add or subtract plausibility to the GMO-potato hypothesis. Since we know the GMO potato-eaters ended up with gut problems, it makes sense that they would be eating less of everything as the study went on. The fact that their potato appetite tapered off doesn't really lean towards any common sense explanation: was it because they had a sick stomach and were eating less? did they just get sick of potatoes? did the GMO aspects of the potatoes have anything to do with it? We just don't know.

   2%
3. C

   No Impact: deformities at birth16% picked this

   Intestinal deformities at birth are not uncommon among rats bred in

   The only deformities being discussed in this paragraph developed over the course of the study, so deformities at birth are not relevant to this conversation.

   16%
4. D

   No Impact: same nutritional value9% picked this

   Genetically modified potatoes have the same nutritional value to rats as do potatoes that are

   If it said that GMO potatoes had "way more" nutritional value, then maybe we could say that this answer weakens by saying, "we should use GMO plants in animal feed, since GMO plants sometimes have way more nutritional value than their non-GMO counterpart." But saying they are equally nutritious doesn't move this argument in any direction.

   9%
5. E

   Too Weak13% picked this

   The researchers conducting the study were unable to explain how the genetic modifications of the potatoes would have caused the intestinal deformities or a

   This answer potentially undermines the author's causal assumption (that the GMO aspect of the potatoes caused the gut / immune problems), by saying that we're not familiar with any causal mechanism that would allow GMO to impact gut / immune system. However, this is a pretty weak answer since it's just saying "the researchers conducting the study were unable to explain it". To have more punch, we'd want to know that the scientific community at large doesn't really have a theory for how GMO would impact gut / immune. We don't get that much of an objection by saying these researchers didn't know how. We don't even know if GMO was the focus of their research. That could be way out of their sphere of expertise. Even though there's no Poker recipe of "which hand beats which" (because strength of language can make a difference), in general ... Weaken - suggesting Alternate > undermining plausibility Explanations of Author's Explanation Strengthen - ruling out Alternate < boosting plausibility Explanations of Author's Explanation

   13%