Critical Reasoning

To experts , Are CR question stems on the gmat as convoluted as the one here in this CR . I could nt make out that its a strengthen quest or is it just I who has a problem

B is my choice and the question is asking which answer choice would support the conclusion.

IMO B
I am not an expert, but trying to put some of my points.
This is a nice question ,and I guess this is an evaluate type question("best explain how the consumption..." ).Even though in this question, answer is very straight forward, it becomes very difficult at times when options are presented in the form of statements rather than question. I use to face a lot of problem in such question until I got a great tip from some anonymous ANGEL . When ever you see statement rather than question, convert the sentence into question. Now according the Powerscore bible you should provide polar answers to the question and see if the answer makes the argument/conclusion weak or strong. If there is no effect ,probably the option is an incorrect choice.You should do this test only on contender options else you may run out of time. For the sake of clarity , let's convert the statement to question,provide polar responses and see its effect on the conclusion / argument.

Conclusion : Organic food were considered good because of absence of pesticides in them.

A) Did organic food marketing group determine that soil in which Organic "fruits and vegetables" are grown was ever treated with pesticides? (Who cares ??? if the group determined or not.)

B) Does the ingestion of pesticide inhibit molecular function that are primarily responsible for body's development of certain immunities...... (if you say "Hell NO" ---> it's weakening the argument & when you say "Hell Yes"-->it's supporting the argument ) Do not get fooled by this kind of tricky statement ever again

C) Are adverse effect noticed by individuals who ingested them in small quantity? YES / NO ---> does not matter (degree of "adverse effect " may vary from individual to individual or it may be possible whatever the person consider adverse is not serious on medical grounds )

D) Are pesticide commonly used .....? YES / NO ---> does not matter
E) Whether the subjects knew about the kind of food they are eating ....? YES / NO ---> does not matter

Apply the concept of questioning on statements (in EVALUATE TYPE QUESTIONS ONLY), and hopefully the answers will come out in flash!!!

IMO B..other options are not even close

IMO - Its a cause and effect question and we need to strengthen the argument.

Cause ---> Effect
(Consumption of Organic food) --> high immunity to Flu and Cold
OR
(consumption of Non Organic food) --> comparatively less immunity of Flu and Cold.

We need to Strengthen this cause and effect, by adding an additional premise.

A) Talking about growing of Foods. (Irrelevant to CE)
B) Describing more about B (Contender).
C) Its Opposite answer. (Its in fact weakening the CE by showing there must be some other reason of strong immunity).
D) Talking about other usage of pesticide ( Irrelevant)
E) Subjects were unaware of food they are eating ( Irrelevant).

I see only one Contender, so I think B is the answer.

OA is B as you can see from the screen shot.

It is amazing to see the number of different question types that people have called this.

It has been treated as an "evaluate" question (which is not a type that I have ever used on the GMAT or the LSAT). It has been treated as cause and effect type of strengthen (I must say that this is an effective way to look at this one!) and as a regular strengthen.

On the GMAT when I see the word "explain" I know that I can only have one type of question - the "explain the paradox question." In the methodology that we use at Veritas the only type of question that needs "explained" is an "explain the paradox" question. No other type of question will use the word "explain."

Now this particular question does not have what I would so much call a paradox. But the question stem is a dead giveaway that this is an "explain" type of question. It says, "Which of the following, if true, would best help to explain how the consumption of non-organic foods might produce the observed effect, in comparison with the consumption of only organic foods."

You know, all you really have to do when in doubt is to do what the question stem says. In this case the question stem is certainly asking you to explain how the organic vs non-organic foods can produced the effect (of higher immunity to the flu and the common cold).

In that case choice B is the clear choice as the above posts have described. It is the only one that explains this...

Hi David the question stem says consumption of non - organic foods might produce the observed effectWhat does this mean ?
What does the observed effect mean ?
From the stimulus the only observed effect seems to be "higher immunity to the common cold and flu "
so if i were to apply this effect to the question , i would interpret the question as asking how non organic foods could result in higher immunity to common cold and flu in comparison with the consumption of only organic foods.
This means that the question stem is asking which option explains how consumption of non organic foods could also result in higher immunity