Passage Summary: Because people who follow meat-safety rules get sick more often than those who don't, the author assumes the rules themselves are the reason for the illnesses.

Conclusion: The established safety guidelines for avoiding meat-borne infections are actually causing more harm than good.

Reasoning: A study showed that people who follow every safety recommendation are actually more likely to get sick than those who ignore the rules.

Analysis: This argument falls into a classic trap by assuming that correlation implies causation. It ignores the possibility of 'self-selection'—perhaps the people following the rules are those with weaker immune systems or those who handle high-risk meats more frequently. The author jumps to the conclusion that the rules are 'counterproductive' without considering if the rule-followers were already at a higher baseline risk. You should look for an answer choice that points out this failure to consider the initial health or risk levels of the two groups.