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

Redeem

undermining statements

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:38 am
Thanked: 5 times

undermining statements

by finance » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:31 am
Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:11 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 4 times

by abhisays » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:05 am
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
doesn't seem to undermine the advertisement.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
obvoius choice.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.
also undermines the advertisement.

D should be the answer.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am
Location: india
Thanked: 1 times

by dinaroneo » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:07 am
IMO C
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:52 am
finance wrote:Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III
E
Life is a Test
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:01 am

by GAMATO » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:27 am
IMO B
What's the OA?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:38 am
Thanked: 5 times

by finance » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:12 pm
The OA is E. Can someone please explain how does the first statement undermine the advertisement??
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:57 pm
finance wrote:The OA is E. Can someone please explain how does the first statement undermine the advertisement??
Since the advertisement reads, "Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies"... and Statement I undermines it because if "a packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price" then Choc-o cookies have the same or more amount of flavor than Crunch-o cookies.

i.e.

Crunch-o cookies = (4 grams of flavor/cookie) x (25 cookies/packet) = 100grams of flavor/packet

from Statement I:

Choc-o cookies = (2+ grams of flavor/cookie) x (50 cookies/packet) = 100+ grams of flavor/packet

Hope that Helps!:-D
Life is a Test
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:51 am

by Baand » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:02 pm
BlindVision wrote:
finance wrote:The OA is E. Can someone please explain how does the first statement undermine the advertisement??
Since the advertisement reads, "Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies"... and Statement I undermines it because if "a packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price" then Choc-o cookies have the same or more amount of flavor than Crunch-o cookies.

i.e.

Crunch-o cookies = (4 grams of flavor/cookie) x (25 cookies/packet) = 100grams of flavor/packet

from Statement I:

Choc-o cookies = (2+ grams of flavor/cookie) x (50 cookies/packet) = 100+ grams of flavor/packet

Hope that Helps!:-D
BlindVision - But the argument nowhere suggest that the price of both the packets are same,so how it could be concluded.Please correct me if my reasoning is flawed!!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:25 pm
Hi Baand... true, the argument did not mention price, however, this is a Weaken-type of CR question. With these question-types, the correct answer should expose a faulty assumption or introduce new detracting evidence.

Statement I does that with "twice as many cookies" and "same price".

Hope that helps you out and may be we can get an expert to further elaborate...

Cheers!:-)
Life is a Test
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:51 am

by Baand » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:35 pm
BlindVision wrote:Hi Baand... true, the argument did not mention price, however, this is a Weaken-type of CR question. With these question-types, the correct answer should expose a faulty assumption or introduce new detracting evidence.

Statement I does that with "twice as many cookies" and "same price".

Hope that helps you out and may be we can get an expert to further elaborate...

Cheers!:-)
Hey..you are absolutely correct man..i didn't read the first option completely - it clearly states that "at the same price"..!!and yes you are correct that with these type of question, if any option introduce any new evidence keeping itself in the context of the argument ,then that could be the valid one!

i really liked your name..cheers!!:)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:19 am
Thank you, Baand!:-) I wish you all the best on your GMAT studies!...
Life is a Test
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:52 am
What a great example of what Beat the GMAT can be -- two test takers with different ideas on a question helping each other!

My question is, what is the source of this question? It says "#30." It is a little unusual...
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:7 members

by Ozlemg » Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:05 am
BlindVision wrote:
finance wrote:Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III
E
Well my answer was A. And I really did not understand how both II and III help to undermine the argument?

Is it correct to assume that the more it is concentrated the more flavour it has and the heavier it weighs, the more flavour it has?

I agree with you that bringing new info is ok as long as it stays within the context of the argument,but i did not understand why E is correct?! :(
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:37 am

by kushagra09 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:27 am
Dear fellow members and experts,

I needed a huge help, I am writing GMAT on 11th August and that leaves me with 2 weeks of prep time. I have not been faring well in the CR section and needed some extra practice material other than OG and Verbal review which I have already completed but has not significantly helped to improve my accuracy in the section. I tried to buy the LSAT official papers but the minimum delivery time in India for the book is 15 days which has truly disheartened me. I will be highly obliged and greatly indebted if you can provide me links of difficult CR questions (LSAT) or some worthwhile download material which have explanations to help me master the section. I really don't have time and will appreciate a prompt reply.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers!
Kushagra
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:55 am

by abhishek karumuri » Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:16 am
Ozlemg wrote:
BlindVision wrote:
finance wrote:Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III
E
Well my answer was A. And I really did not understand how both II and III help to undermine the argument?

Is it correct to assume that the more it is concentrated the more flavour it has and the heavier it weighs, the more flavour it has?

I agree with you that bringing new info is ok as long as it stays within the context of the argument,but i did not understand why E is correct?! :(
I agree with Ozlemg, I dont understand how B can undermine the argument?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply