Critical Reasoning

Although well-known links exist between soda consumption and obesity, a recent study has found that banning these sweetened beverages has no effect on children's eating habits. Since many school boards are fiercely debating such policies, the results of this study should provide the hard data needed to make an informed decision.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

a) Several studies show a link between banning sweetened beverages in school and the eating habits of the affected children.
b) Childhood obesity is most effectively addressed when parents prevent their children from drinking sweetened beverages both in and out of school.
c) School-age children consume more sugar from fatty foods than from sweetened beverages.
d) Most of the school boards are considering banning sweetened beverages as a remedy for misbehavior after lunch than for obesity.
e) Children of obese parents are more likely than children of non-obese parents to become obese regardless of their food and beverage intake.

OA: d

I don't get it...for me answer a makes sense...can s.b. please explain?

This is a Veritas question

Although well-known links exist between soda consumption and obesity, a recent study has found that banning these sweetened beverages has no effect on children's eating habits. Since many school boards are fiercely debating such policies, the results of this study should provide the hard data needed to make an informed decision.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

a) Several studies show a link between banning sweetened beverages in school and the eating habits of the affected children.
b) Childhood obesity is most effectively addressed when parents prevent their children from drinking sweetened beverages both in and out of school.
c) School-age children consume more sugar from fatty foods than from sweetened beverages.
d) Most of the school boards are considering banning sweetened beverages as a remedy for misbehavior after lunch than for obesity.
e) Children of obese parents are more likely than children of non-obese parents to become obese regardless of their food and beverage intake.


The answer should be 'C' according to me.

The information given says that banning sweetened beverages has no effects on the eating habits of children. And based on this data,we make conclude that schools would be able to reach a decision.

Of the options, only option C bring this decision into question. If it were true that the School Boards were considering banning sweetened beverages as a remedy for mis-behaviour and and not because it harms the children, the given data would not help them reach a decision.

Whats the OA >

OA is d.....not logical for me tough....

Goldfinger2001 wrote:OA is d.....not logical for me tough....

I agree with You . Gotta Pm an Expert

The answer is definitely (D). Akash actually gave the correct explanation up above; he simply wrote "C" instead of "D" in his post for some reason.

(A) is definitely tempting because it contradicts the opinion of the author. However, this does not count as "weakening [or undermining] the argument" on the GMAT. To weaken an argument, we have to attack its logic -- its assumptions -- the relevance of the evidence to the conclusion. (A) simply attacks the evidence and says "No, that isn't true." This will never be the right answer to a GMAT question.

To attack the logic, we have to look for how the Evidence and Conclusion differ. The Evidence is that, based on new studies, banning sodas does NOT affect childhood eating habits. We assume this is true; the question isn't whether it's true or not, but whether this evidence, taken as true, proves the Conclusion. The Conclusion is that now, school boards will have "the hard data needed to make an informed decision" -- that is, that based on these new studies alone, the school board will definitely NOT ban sodas, because there is proof that banning them will not affect eating habits.

The correct answer needs to say "Yes, that Evidence is true, but it doesn't mean that the school board won't ban sodas; they may still ban them for some other reason." (D) gives this other reason. If the school board isn't planning to ban sodas in order to make children thinner, but only in order to punish th echildren or stop them from misbehaving after lunch, then this study is irrelevant to their debate.

Notice that the right answer doesn't weaken the author's ideas about the link or lack thereof between soda and obesity or any of that; on the GMAT, it rarely does, and doesn't ever have to. All the correct answer needs to do is to say:

"Even if the given Evidence is true, that doesn't mean your Conclusion will be true also."

And (D) says this, because given (D), even if they're convinced that soda doesn't lead to obesity, they might still ban it for other reasons. It attacks the logic of the Argument, not necessarily the Evidence or Conclusion themselves.

Takeaways:
1) Never contradict the Evidence!
2) Look for anything that makes the specific Conclusion -- here, that the school board won't ban soda -- less likely to come true even in light of the current evidence.
3) Always think about the Logic of the Argument, not the factual details.
4) Always think about alternate reasons/causes/motivations/possibilities.

The Conclusion is that now, school boards will have "the hard data needed to make an informed decision" -- that is, that based on these new studies alone, the school board will definitely NOT ban sodas, because there is proof that banning them will not affect eating habits.
The correct answer needs to say "Yes, that Evidence is true, but it doesn't mean that the school board won't ban sodas; they may still ban them for some other reason."

Adam Thanks for the Help and for the great explanation.
U have given us the Evidence as well as Conclusion. But just to simplify things a bit ,
Isnt the conclusion the results of this study should provide the hard data needed to make an informed decision
and the Correct Answer trying to do away with the need to provide Hard Data .

The conclusion, as put by you, is correct. The study will assist the school board to make an informed decision.

So, our aim is to weaken this conclusion, by saying the study wont actually help the board make an informed decision. Why wont the hard data help. Because the criteria of the board for banning the beverages is different and hence won't use the study.

mundasingh123 wrote:

The Conclusion is that now, school boards will have "the hard data needed to make an informed decision" -- that is, that based on these new studies alone, the school board will definitely NOT ban sodas, because there is proof that banning them will not affect eating habits.
The correct answer needs to say "Yes, that Evidence is true, but it doesn't mean that the school board won't ban sodas; they may still ban them for some other reason."

Adam Thanks for the Help and for the great explanation.
U have given us the Evidence as well as Conclusion. But just to simplify things a bit ,
Isnt the conclusion the results of this study should provide the hard data needed to make an informed decision
and the Correct Answer trying to do away with the need to provide Hard Data .

Yes, mundasingh, you are very right for pointing this. I'm cheating a little here; the conclusion is, literally, that the school board now has the hard data to make a decision, and what I did above was very dangerous, in that I extended this conclusion a little bit logically: that they have the hard data and will thus make a certain decision. However, the simple conclusion "the school board now has hard data" isn't really an argument, at least not enough for us to Weaken. I understand why that leads us to (A) -- since (A) says that the evidence isn't really hard data -- but again, because (A) contradicts the given evidence, it can't be right, so the literal reading of the Conclusion, as you correctly put it, leads us to NO answer.

When I read (D), I had those same doubts. I went back and looked to see if it was logically proper to extend the Conclusion to imply that the school board will choose not to ban sodas, and I decided it was. It's a dangerous decision, but in this case it paid off.

Another example of where you can "extend" the conclusion is as follows:

Opponents of the new healthcare plan argue that, if a public option is offered by the government, current health insurance providers will go out of business. However, this worry is unfounded.

The above Conclusion is "this worry is unfounded" -- however, it is perfectly acceptable on test day to extend this to its logical equivalent, "current health insurance providers will NOT go out of business," given the context.

Hope that helps!

Thans Adam for clarifying Things so well