A recent study suggests that not eating genetically modified foods can

I think its E as its focusing more on the people and their efforts

Option E works well to counter/ weaken the conclusion in this argument as option E brings in/ supplies new information to the argument. A weaken argument necessarily has to bring in new information and typically in this argument we see that not eating genetically modified food is not the only sole cause of avoiding the various diseases but Exercise and Other lifestyle choices (New information brought in by E) also helps to avoid such diseases.

Bunuel, I chose E, however A was also a close choice. Could you explain why A is incorrect? Thanks!

­

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

As with any weaken question, your first goal should be to understand the argument presented and find the gap between the information given and the conclusion presented. In this argument, you are told that a study claims that not eating genetically modified foods (GMOs) leads to lower rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease because people who didn't eat GMOs tend to develop type 2 diabetes and heart disease at a lower rate than do people who do eat GMOs.

The gap here is in the difference between correlation and causation. While there is a correlation between the behavior (not eating GMOs) and the outcome (not getting type 2 diabetes or heart disease), there is nothing that proves the outcome is due to the behavior. What if non-GMO foods were only available to individuals who were wealthy or who belonged to a specific ethnic group that developed both diseases at lower rates? The correct answer will exploit the gap between correlation and causation.

The only answer choice to do this is (E). If individuals who don't eat GMOs also engage in other activities known to lower the risk of both diseases, then it's impossible to tell if their decreased risk is due to the fact that they don't eat GMOs or the fact that they engage in these other activities. Maybe the cause of both (not eating GMOs and decreased risk) is their lifestyle, and those two effects are just correlated.

Among the other answers, (A) can be eliminated because there is no way to link the practice of using pesticides or artificial fertilizers to diabetes or heart disease. Choice (B) can be eliminated since it does not address anything to do with the conclusion, which is specifically about genetically modified foods. Choice (C) can also be eliminated for the same reason - there is no reason that these individuals wouldn't have shown up in both groups. Choice (D) can be eliminated as well since whether other studies have looked at this issue doesn't impact whether or not the conclusion is correct.­