Critical Reasoning

Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?

1.The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
2.Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
3.Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
4.The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
5.Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

OA:3

I got this question in MGMAT test I took today.

Since this is an assumption question, I took the negation test to arrive at the right answer.
In that sense, negating 5 does more damage to the argument than negating 3.
3 is much more broad and hence seems less likely to be an assumption than 5.

Can somebody please clear how 5 is not the right answer and 3 is ?

Thanks.

If you think 5, then every other mango drink must be banned not just this "new drink".

notice the wording in the stem: a chemical supplement...may also result in serious cardiac problems. the chemical MAY cause cardiac problems. We don't know if it WILL cause cardiac problems.


hope it helps.

I disagree with your assessment of negating.
OK so you narrowed down to 3 and 5.

3.Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
5.Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

Lets negate the two statements:
3: None of the drinks that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
5: Some (not many) consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

In the case of 5 there is still some chance of cardiac problems. The negated statement does not weaken the argument as a whole.
This coupled with the fact that Cardiac Arrest MAY happen doesn't hamper the argument at all.

Should be 5.

Both 3 and 5 look good.
experts comments please!!

dhonu121 wrote:Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?

1.The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
2.Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
3.Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
4.The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
5.Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

OA:3

I got this question in MGMAT test I took today.

Since this is an assumption question, I took the negation test to arrive at the right answer.
In that sense, negating 5 does more damage to the argument than negating 3.
3 is much more broad and hence seems less likely to be an assumption than 5.

Can somebody please clear how 5 is not the right answer and 3 is ?

Thanks.

negating 5 we get"most people will not suffer" all - most = few (less than 50%) but what if the damage is done even to few. banning a product is justified even if it caused few(less than 50%) people suffer.

Well!!
Even I had the same kind of doubts about options such as the above, then i read the book "Power score CR bible", which cleared my doubts.
The answer to your Q, "Y not 5" is the logical opposite of "will" is not "will not" but "may".
Now, negate the option 5 and you will find that the option can't weaken the argument.
Hope it helps

Suppose I gave you this argument.

Premise: A is B.
Conclusion: A is C.

What's the missing piece? Something relating B to C, right?

So suppose I tell you that

A = Mango Paradise
B = Contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra
C = Harmful to consumer health

Now our argument says

Premise: A is B. ("Mango Paradise contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra.")
Conclusion: A is C. ("Mango Paradise is harmful to consumer health.")

The missing piece is "B is C", or "Anything containing 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health." So we're set!

The problem with 5 is that we don't necessarily need MOST consumers to experience serious cardiac problems to say that a drink is harmful to consumer health. Suppose I told you that I've concocted a new drink, and that while 90% of the people who drink it will be fine, the other 10% will have heart attacks immediately upon consumption. Would you ban that drink, and call it harmful to consumer health? I should hope so! But did most people experience serious cardiac problems? Nope!