Critical Reasoning

National regulations that limit the sale of meat to within 5 days of packaging should be changed. Under optimal conditions, meat kept at 40 degree F will not spoil for 16 days. If the regulations were changed, prices for meat would drop due to increased shelf life and reduced waste, but the safety of the food suply would not be compromised.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

A. Most consumers keep meat for up to a week before eating it.
B. 7 of 10 shopkeepers favor extending the limitation on meat to 9 days.
C. Approximately 65% of the meat display cases nationally maintain tempratures between 47 and 54 F.
D. Approximately half the meat stored for 25 days is still safe to consume.
E. Meat packaging operations are more efficient when they can make, larger deliveries than when they must make more frequent, smaller deliveries.

Ans: C, Please give an explanation as to why C should be the answer.

I chose A which is wrong.

Thinking more, the answer kinda makes sense, because if the meat is kept at a higher temperature than optimal conditions, then the meat will go bad faster than 16 days, which will compromise the safety of the food even though the regulation will change.

I think question/answer could be better phrased because the answer fails to address the other part of the conclusion regarding pricing changes. Also, the stimulus never specifies anywhere what the regulations should be changed to.

Is this from 1000 CR? If yes, the question could very well be flawed.

You're looking for an answer which weakens the argument therefore (A), (B) and (D) are out immediately because they actually strengthen the argument.

(E) is out of scope.

(C) weakens the argument by saying a majority of meat cases (65%) have temperatures between 47 and 54 degrees. The argument recommends 40 degrees.

no its a kaplan question

But I dont agree with the justification for choosing C.
Because 'optimal temprature is 40 degrees' anything higher or lower will not convey much. Just because they maintain currently at 47-54 degrees... how does that weaken the conclusion. I dont see the relation, could you elaborate on this more..

I think A is wrong because even if consumers keep meet upto 7 days, that still leaves room to change the regulation from 5 to 8 days.

C is correct because the 15 day argument is based on a temperature which is not used by 65% of the stores selling the meat. C invalidates the argument.

imo C

Hi,

I have recently joined the forum.

IMO : C -

The reason being it states that 65% of people are storing meat under 47-54 degrees F what about other 35%. Its food products and its possible that 35% would be preserving it under 40 degree F which would make it unsafe. So C is the right answer

C-

Simply look at the Conclusion. It's a weakness question, therefore tackle the temperature mentioned as we are trying to discredit or weaken the conclusion.

Hi all,
I bet for A,
it means that meat must be stored more than 5 days + 7 days the consumers store. that why national regulation limit sell meat in five day.

My intuition whispers that it is A