heh, fitzgerald I tend to disagree with you. I didn't even think of posting further in this thread as you did one excellent shot in your last reply. But, pardon when we say "safety of the drug supply" the things we possibly imply are transportation, storage and placement onto buyer's boad.
Moreover, GMAT doesn't require us to be well tested on commercial TERMS - supply, delivery, good safety... So safety of foods cannot be compromised.
I'll try to turn our selection of C to right direction, although I'd tended for A initially. C requires us to admit that neither shelf life of meat, nor sellers' (shop-keeper) plan to realize the stuff for 9 days, nor possibility of holding meat for 20 days are the reasons to helps us eliminate the restrictions on the 5-day meat sales. Yes our sales could increase if we were able to supply the market with more meat, as then we would create not-short term but long-term consumption demand. But is the time i.e. 5 days of restrictions put on our sales is the only barrier to keep us from selling more meat? No
we don't have cases available. We have another reason why after elimination of the 5-day meat rule our sales won't increase.
So C is logical and correct.
A is not precise, yes we need two more days (suppose we even don't have C here). Still two more days will create how much increase in sales? We are missing the relative data here.
hope this helps.
fitzgerald23 wrote:arora007 wrote:I somehow judge the conclusion as "saftey of the food must not be compromised", how can we judge that its before sale or even after sale of the food-item ?
You are missing a key word in there. The dont say "safety of the food would not be compromised" they say "safety of the food
supply would not be compromised". There is a big difference between food and food supply. Food supply is the time leading to purchase by the consumer.
Even if there is still confusion between A & C, remember that you are looking for the best answer. Here is another way to look at A.
The argument tells us that food is currently stored for 5 days but good up to 16. A tells us people keep it for a week. So that is a maximum of 12 days. The author never states that he wants the laws changed to 16. He just says if they extend the time the price will be cheaper and the food will be fine. If he just wants it 7 days and people store it for 7 days then the meat stays for 14 days and it would still be good. Hence his argument is correct. If he wants it stored for 10 days then the meat could be bad by the time the consumer eats it.
So A is ambiguous. It could strengthen the argument or it could weaken it. In C there is no such ambiguity. Meat is only good for the longedst time if stored at 40 degrees. In C we know that a majority of the meat keepers keep it well above 40, which is the optimum temperature. If at least 65 percent are well above 40 then changing the time limit would prove dangerous. It would stand to reason that the laws are designed to mesh with what technology currently allows.
