Critical Reasoning

harshavardhanc wrote:

xyztroy wrote:I think the ans should be A. This is the only options which works best with the negation...!! pls post the OA

conclusion : the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit

premise 1 : The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy when they are delivered to the cafeteria.
premise 2 : the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells


if the assumption is A and you negate it :

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

the patron can still make his conclusion. He'll say that, though the fruits are washed after the harvest, the greasy material still remains on the fruits and they are in the greasy condition when they are delivered.

However, if you negate B :

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest DO NOT leave a greasy residue on the fruit.

will he be able to conclude that pesticides are the reason for greasiness ?

HTH.

xyztroy wrote:Read this -> Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed.

So if someone other than the restaurant has washed the apples then there is no danger for anyone...

I am still up for A.

harshavardhanc wrote:

xyztroy wrote:I think the ans should be A. This is the only options which works best with the negation...!! pls post the OA

conclusion : the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit

premise 1 : The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy when they are delivered to the cafeteria.
premise 2 : the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells


if the assumption is A and you negate it :

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

the patron can still make his conclusion. He'll say that, though the fruits are washed after the harvest, the greasy material still remains on the fruits and they are in the greasy condition when they are delivered.

However, if you negate B :

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest DO NOT leave a greasy residue on the fruit.

will he be able to conclude that pesticides are the reason for greasiness ?

HTH.

harshavardhanc wrote:

xyztroy wrote:Read this -> Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed.

So if someone other than the restaurant has washed the apples then there is no danger for anyone...

I am still up for A.

yes, in order to prove that the fruits are dangerous, he first needs to prove that they have pesticides on them.

His assumption, therefore, is that the greasiness is due pesticides.

I'm still up for B.

harshavardhanc wrote:

xyztroy wrote:Read this -> Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed.

So if someone other than the restaurant has washed the apples then there is no danger for anyone...

I am still up for A.

yes, in order to prove that the fruits are dangerous, he first needs to prove that they have pesticides on them.

His assumption, therefore, is that the greasiness is due pesticides.

I'm still up for B.

paddle_sweep wrote:IMO it's B. Pls post OA.

thephoenix wrote:Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition
lsat

kevincanspain wrote:

thephoenix wrote:Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition
lsat

If B is false, could the conclusion still be valid? Yes: If the greasy residue is due to the fact that the apples have never been washed, any pesticide (greasy or not) would still be on the apples when they are sold. Thus B is NOT an assumption underying the argument.

On the other hand, if A is false (i.e. if the apples are washed thoroughly before reaching the cafeteria), then the conclusion is evidently wrong. Thus A is an assumption on which the arugment relies

huly wrote:seems like a few choose C
but I have to say of course it's C
it concludes that the apples will endanger the patrons, but this will happen ONLY IF the partrons are not aware of the unwashed apple

kevincanspain wrote: If B is false, could the conclusion still be valid? Yes: If the greasy residue is due to the fact that the apples have never been washed, any pesticide (greasy or not) would still be on the apples when they are sold. Thus B is NOT an assumption underying the argument.

On the other hand, if A is false (i.e. if the apples are washed thoroughly before reaching the cafeteria), then the conclusion is evidently wrong. Thus A is an assumption on which the arugment relies