EK Verbal 101, Exam 10, Question 40

[bus]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Exam 10, Question 40 (page 175)

Assume that the FDA official who was instrumental in pushing legislation requiring "warning labels" was interviewed. If this official remarked that he had done this only to avoid class-action litigation against the government, this remark would weaken the passage assertion that:

C. fluoride can be dangerous.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain? To me, it would strengthen the argument.

Is this an EK error? Or am I just dumb? It's not listed on the EK website under errata.

 

[krogers21]

Exam 10, Question 40 (page 175)

Assume that the FDA official who was instrumental in pushing legislation requiring "warning labels" was interviewed. If this official remarked that he had done this only to avoid class-action litigation against the government, this remark would weaken the passage assertion that:

C. fluoride can be dangerous.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain? To me, it would strengthen the argument.

Is this an EK error? Or am I just dumb? It's not listed on the EK website under errata.

The official states that he only pushed for warning labels because if he hadn't then the government would have more court cases. I'd say it would weaken the passage assertion because the strongest proponent for these warnings stating things such as "fluoride is dangerous" did it to save his butt. Wouldn't this make you feel like the labels are just there to prevent legal action rather than to truly warn you of the dangers?

 

[bus]

If fluoride was not dangerous, there would be no need for warning labels. By putting warning labels, the official acknowledges that fluoride can be dangerous, and uses the warning labels to cover his butt from litigation.

Even if the labels are there only to prevent legal action, the fact that he has to use these labels suggests to me that fluoride does indeed have the potential to be dangerous.

 

[milski]

If fluoride was not dangerous, there would be no need for warning labels. By putting warning labels, the official acknowledges that fluoride can be dangerous, and uses the warning labels to cover his butt from litigation.

Even if the labels are there only to prevent legal action, the fact that he has to use these labels suggests to me that fluoride does indeed have the potential to be dangerous.

Whether fluoride is considered dangerous or not can be a long argument in court with an unknown outcome, depending on experts, judges, juries and other hard to predict factors. Slapping a label that it is avoids any possible litigation that the users were not warned, regardless of how dangerous it actually is. Thus, finding out that the reason for the label is to minimize the chances of a lawsuit should be weakening the argument that it actually is dangerous.

Big picture though - don't overthink the explanations of VR questions, especially from the prep companies. Whether you agree or not, you will be scored on being able to think their way. Use EK/TPR/etc. to get idea of what the types of questions are, practice your speed reading and so on and the AAMC practice material to fine tune the sort of answers that you need to look for.