Calorie Intake - Resolve the Paradox...

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:43 am
Thanked: 2 times
Sixty adults were asked to keep a diary of their meals, including what they consumed, when, and in the company of how many people. It was found that at meals with which they drank alcoholic beverages, they consumed about 175 calories more from nonalcoholic source than they did at meals with which they did not drink alcoholic beverages.

Each of the following, if true, contributes to an explanation of the difference in caloric intake EXCEPT:
(A) Diners spent a much longer time at meals served with alcohol than they did at those serve without alcohol.
(B) The meals eaten later in the day tended to be larger than those eaten earlier in the day, and later meals were more likely to include alcohol.
(C) People eat more when there are more people present at the meal, and more people tended to be present at meal served with alcohol than at meals served without alcohol.
(D) The meals that were most carefully prepared and most attractively served tended to be those at which alcoholic beverages were consumed.
(E) At meals that included alcohol, relatively more of the total calories consumed came from carbohydrates and relatively fewer of them came from fats and proteins.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:47 am
IMO E

we are not concerned about where the calories come from. It also does not talk anything about meals served without alcohol

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:43 am
Thanked: 2 times

by jitendra_mulchandani » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:19 am
Can you please explain the reasoning for eliminating (A) ?

This option only states that diners spent more time on meals served with alcohol. Aren't we assuming that if they spent more time it means they consumed more calories ?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 pm
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:660

by vivek1110 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:03 am
I thought it's C. What's OA?
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:12 am
Thanked: 1 times

by vipulbhatt2003 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:20 am
@jitendra_mulchandani

You are right.. A is a bit dodgy and makes us assume that a person would eat more if he spends longer at the meal.

BUT Please keep in mind that GMAT is looking for the BEST answer.

And Option E does not in anyway explain the difference in intake of calories.. with option A atleast we can with an assumption.

Therefore IMO Option E is the best choice

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:43 am
Thanked: 2 times

by jitendra_mulchandani » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:58 am
OA is E

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:00 pm
vipulbhatt2003 wrote:@jitendra_mulchandani

You are right.. A is a bit dodgy and makes us assume that a person would eat more if he spends longer at the meal.

BUT Please keep in mind that GMAT is looking for the BEST answer.

And Option E does not in anyway explain the difference in intake of calories.. with option A atleast we can with an assumption.

Therefore IMO Option E is the best choice

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:31 am

by kaushals » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:21 am
I too with E

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:35 am
Can you please explain the reasoning for eliminating (A) ?

This option only states that diners spent more time on meals served with alcohol. Aren't we assuming that if they spent more time it means they consumed more calories ?

In order to resolve a paradox, we only need a plausible and possible explanation (not a definite one). Because more time is clearly more likely to result in more eating than it would result in less eating, choice A provides a plausible and possible explanation. (Choice D is also like this: carefully prepared and attractively served meals are more likely to result in more eating, not less.)
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto