- Athe officer has not stated how many growers in the block follow the package
- Bthe officer has not said how long the package has been in use in the block
- Cthe officer's evidence is drawn from growers who belong to his own society
- Das the officer states it, the loss of a crop is itself taken as proof that the package was not properly followed, so that no failure anywhere could ever count against the package and the claim is put beyond the reach of any test
Step-by-Step Solution
Ask what would have to happen for the officer's first sentence to be false, and the answer is: nothing could. A grower who followed the package and lost his crop is, by the second sentence, reclassified as one who did not follow it properly, so every possible refutation is turned into a fresh confirmation. A claim so protected asserts nothing about the package and cannot guide a grower. How many follow the package and how long it has been in use are facts about its spread; that the growers belong to his society is a complaint about the sample, and even a sample drawn from the whole district would leave the claim exactly as unfalsifiable.
Answer: D) as the officer states it, the loss of a crop is itself taken as proof that the package was not properly followed, so that no failure anywhere could ever count against the package and the claim is put beyond the reach of any test