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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

The new soft drink, Mango Paradise

Expert replies
by dhonu121 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:19 am
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've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by karthikgmat » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:23 am
If you think 5, then every other mango drink must be banned not just this "new drink".
Join the discussion

by ice_rush » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:25 am
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.
Join the discussion

by mourinhogmat1 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:08 am
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.
Join the discussion

by mv12 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:39 am
Should be 5.
Join the discussion

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:58 pm
Both 3 and 5 look good.
experts comments please!!
Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! (Rocky VI)
Join the discussion

by 7777 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:39 pm
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.
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:20 am
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
Join the discussion

by Matt@VeritasPrep » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:50 pm
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!
Join the discussion