BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

The new soft drink, Mango Paradise

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

The new soft drink, Mango Paradise

by dhonu121 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:19 am
Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?

1.The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
2.Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
3.Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
4.The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
5.Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

OA:3

I got this question in MGMAT test I took today.

Since this is an assumption question, I took the negation test to arrive at the right answer.
In that sense, negating 5 does more damage to the argument than negating 3.
3 is much more broad and hence seems less likely to be an assumption than 5.

Can somebody please clear how 5 is not the right answer and 3 is ?

Thanks.
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:35 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:610

by karthikgmat » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:23 am
If you think 5, then every other mango drink must be banned not just this "new drink".
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:25 am
notice the wording in the stem: a chemical supplement...may also result in serious cardiac problems. the chemical MAY cause cardiac problems. We don't know if it WILL cause cardiac problems.


hope it helps.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:56 am
Thanked: 1 times

by mourinhogmat1 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:08 am
I disagree with your assessment of negating.
OK so you narrowed down to 3 and 5.

3.Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
5.Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

Lets negate the two statements:
3: None of the drinks that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
5: Some (not many) consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

In the case of 5 there is still some chance of cardiac problems. The negated statement does not weaken the argument as a whole.
This coupled with the fact that Cardiac Arrest MAY happen doesn't hamper the argument at all.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:19 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by mv12 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:39 am
Should be 5.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:58 pm
Both 3 and 5 look good.
experts comments please!!
Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! (Rocky VI)
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:50 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by 7777 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:39 pm
dhonu121 wrote:Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?

1.The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
2.Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
3.Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
4.The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
5.Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

OA:3

I got this question in MGMAT test I took today.

Since this is an assumption question, I took the negation test to arrive at the right answer.
In that sense, negating 5 does more damage to the argument than negating 3.
3 is much more broad and hence seems less likely to be an assumption than 5.

Can somebody please clear how 5 is not the right answer and 3 is ?

Thanks.
negating 5 we get"most people will not suffer" all - most = few (less than 50%) but what if the damage is done even to few. banning a product is justified even if it caused few(less than 50%) people suffer.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:02 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:4 members

by [email protected] » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:20 am
Well!!
Even I had the same kind of doubts about options such as the above, then i read the book "Power score CR bible", which cleared my doubts.
The answer to your Q, "Y not 5" is the logical opposite of "will" is not "will not" but "may".
Now, negate the option 5 and you will find that the option can't weaken the argument.
Hope it helps
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:32 pm
Location: East Bay all the way
Thanked: 625 times
Followed by:119 members
GMAT Score:780

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:50 pm
Suppose I gave you this argument.

Premise: A is B.
Conclusion: A is C.

What's the missing piece? Something relating B to C, right?

So suppose I tell you that

A = Mango Paradise
B = Contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra
C = Harmful to consumer health

Now our argument says

Premise: A is B. ("Mango Paradise contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra.")
Conclusion: A is C. ("Mango Paradise is harmful to consumer health.")

The missing piece is "B is C", or "Anything containing 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health." So we're set!

The problem with 5 is that we don't necessarily need MOST consumers to experience serious cardiac problems to say that a drink is harmful to consumer health. Suppose I told you that I've concocted a new drink, and that while 90% of the people who drink it will be fine, the other 10% will have heart attacks immediately upon consumption. Would you ban that drink, and call it harmful to consumer health? I should hope so! But did most people experience serious cardiac problems? Nope!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1