- Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:18 pm
The key to Method questions like this is to abstract the reasoning in the stimulus and use that abstraction to prephrase an answer. The logical elements in the prephrase should then match up 1:1 with the correct answer choice, even if the wording is a bit different. Here we are given a statement that the stimulus author is seeking to prove is false. How does the author attempt to do this? They concoct a scenario in which scientists would be simultaneously assuming opposite, mutually exclusive things about food additives. So the statement is argued to be false because its logical implications would lead to logical contradictions, and assume that scientists would not abide these contradictions.
With answer choice (C), we run into a problem when a second true statement is introduced into the mix. The stimulus is only concerned with the single statement about scientists' assumptions and the hypothetical implications arising from that statement. There is no second statement taken as true, so we can safely discard this as an incorrect choice.
Answer choice (B) correctly deals with the method of using implications/consequences as premises, but does throw a wrench in with the adjective "implausible." This works, however, when we factor in the assumption present in the last sentence; in the author of the stimulus's mind, it is implausible that scientists would ever simultaneously assume two contradictory things to be true, ie that a food additive is both safe and not safe. Because the author believes this to be impossible, the argument relies upon the implausible consequences (scientists assuming the additives both safe and not safe) to argue the statement is false.
Hope this clears things up!