Q3 is probmeatic IMHO - I too am debating between A and E, with no real way to differentiate between the two. If I were to encounter this on the GMAT, I would choose A as the really irrelevant one: E supports the reasoning indirectly by eliminating a potentially weakening point. If E were not true, and breast cancer were a minor disease striking one patient a year, then even a dramatic 100% increase (i.e., two breast cancer cases a year) won't necessarily bring more attention and more funding to the disease. By eliminating this potential WEAKENING point in the argument's reasoning, E indirectly STRENGTHENs the argument's reasoning.

There are essentially three ways of strengthening an argument:

1) Support the assumption behind the argument directly (answer choice B is a minor example of this, as it shows more cases -> more publicity
2) Eliminate a weakening point (answer choice E, sort of).
3) Provide another example where the same thing has worked in another place - usually a 'weak', second best strengthener. (Answer choice C is a borderline example of this).

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:Q1 has been discussed at length, and I agree that the answer is C. The premise is that if dairy products remain expensive, families will devote a greater portion of their budget on dairy products. This alone is not enough to make the leap to the conclusion that this will hurt other industries. The missing step (the assumption that bridges between the premise and the conclusion) is that the budget is "fixed", and one product (i.e. dairy) comes at the expense of others, which will explain why the other industries will be hurt.

What about

Most consumers would not prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.

If consumers go for expensive dairy products , they will have little money to spend on other food items, so they will buy less quantity of higher-priced food items.
If we deny Statement A,we get Most consumers would prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.
Therefore,if consumers go for low priced dairy products , they will have more money to spend on other food items.Hence more quantity of other food items.Hence the other food items industry doesnt suffer and jobs are preserved
Whats wrong with this reasoning.

mundasingh123 wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:Q1 has been discussed at length, and I agree that the answer is C. The premise is that if dairy products remain expensive, families will devote a greater portion of their budget on dairy products. This alone is not enough to make the leap to the conclusion that this will hurt other industries. The missing step (the assumption that bridges between the premise and the conclusion) is that the budget is "fixed", and one product (i.e. dairy) comes at the expense of others, which will explain why the other industries will be hurt.

What about

Most consumers would not prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.

If consumers go for expensive dairy products , they will have little money to spend on other food items, so they will buy less quantity of higher-priced food items.
If we deny Statement A,we get Most consumers would prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.
Therefore,if consumers go for low priced dairy products , they will have more money to spend on other food items.Hence more quantity of other food items.Hence the other food items industry doesnt suffer and jobs are preserved
Whats wrong with this reasoning.

Hmm. I see what you're saying, and it might actually have merit - if A is wrong and consumers would still prefer dairy if it were cheaper, then the other industries are screwed, price support or not. So if the reverse weakens the argument that price support are to blame, then A is a necessary assumption for the conclusion that price supports are the ones hurting the other industries.
I would still choose C, because C is a more direct assumption then A's backward approach. A also is problematic in that it assumes that the other industries are hurt, and merely addresses whether price supports are the cause of this or something else is to blame - whereas the argument limits the scope of the discussion to a hypothetical case of "if we provide price supports, other industries will suffer".

No Geva
What i said is different.

Hmm. I see what you're saying, and it might actually have merit - if A is wrong and consumers would still prefer dairy if it were cheaper, then the other industries are screwed, price support or not. So if the reverse weakens the argument that price support are to blame, then A is a necessary assumption for the conclusion that price supports are the ones hurting the other industries.

The argument hinges on the point that since price supports make dairy products expensive , other food products will suffer and hence people employed in the the other food products industry will lose their jobs.
I can infer from this that the people lose their jobs because the revenue of the other food products has decreased because people now spend less on other food products

A ) Most consumers would not prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.

If we deny A , we get Most consumers would prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.
If people buy low priced dairy products they will have more money to spend on the other Food products . So the other Food products will have More revenue.