BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy

Expert replies
by thephoenix » Thu May 06, 2010 3:44 am
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
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Thu May 06, 2010 4:52 am
imo A.

cafeteria thinks that after harvesting apples are not washed but before reaching cafeteria they washed it , hence they sell as it is

what is oa
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Thu May 06, 2010 5:10 am
, A should be the answer.
Last edited by gmatmachoman on Thu May 06, 2010 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by 2011mbaspirant » Thu May 06, 2010 5:20 am
IMO it is E as the final conclusionof the argument points towards fruits in general. The case of apple is used only as an example to build a case for the overall conclusion. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Join the discussion

by rockeyb » Thu May 06, 2010 9:44 am
I think the answer should be B .

The very first line states : The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy.

No where in the passage dose the author says that pesticides make the fruit greasy .

The conclusion states : the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons .

So to successfully draw this conclusion the author should have assumed that pesticides causes the apple to be greasy .

Option E is in correct as the conclusion talks about a single Fruit , and from the passage we can say the fruit is apple . But we can not say any thing about other fruits .

Option (A) is incorrect as it says the opposite of what is stated .

The passage clearly states that the fruits are delivered unwashed and it sells unwashed fruits .

Please correct me if I am wrong.
"Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess"
Join the discussion

by beat_gmat_09 » Thu May 06, 2010 10:00 am
+1 for B.

Greasy and pesticides should be linked with each other for the argument to stand.
If we put B to denial test, we come to know that - had the apples were not greasy, ( i.e. if the pesticides would hadn't left greasy residue) no further investigations would had been made to check why they are greasy ... and hence no conclusion that pesticide covered fruits (so called greasy) are sold.
Join the discussion

by orel » Thu May 06, 2010 6:36 pm
B

what's is OA?
Join the discussion

by debmalya_dutta » Thu May 06, 2010 6:58 pm
think it is A .
The conclusion here is :the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit.
We are looking for an assumption here

look at the following sequence of statements
=> Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested
=> the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells

the conclusion hence assumes that the fruit is not washed before it reaches the cafeteria
Join the discussion

by ansumania » Thu May 06, 2010 8:15 pm
OA pl.....
Join the discussion

by paes » Thu May 06, 2010 9:06 pm
IMO A
Join the discussion

by ansh.kumar » Thu May 06, 2010 11:56 pm
MY PICK IS "B". don't overlook the word "THOROUGHLY WASHED" IN "A". its enough to eliminate this option.
Join the discussion

by maxpain » Fri May 07, 2010 1:09 am
+1 for B.

Grease and pesticides have to be connected for the argument to hold.
Join the discussion

by harshavardhanc » Fri May 07, 2010 1:13 am
IMO B. OA plz.
Regards,
Harsha
Join the discussion

by xyztroy » Fri May 07, 2010 10:20 am
I think the ans should be A. This is the only options which works best with the negation...!! pls post the OA
Join the discussion

by harshavardhanc » Fri May 07, 2010 10:43 am
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.
Regards,
Harsha
Join the discussion