undermining statements

E. Got it right in first attempt.
III undermines the claim for sure. The ad says size is directly proportional to flavor (content). As mentioned in III, if Crunch-o, despite its size, has 50% less content, it calls into question the above relationship.
III is only in D and E
I says that despite the size of individual cookie is large for Crunch-o, number of Choc-o is more in one packet. This compensates the additional flavor in Crunch-o's each cookie. Hence, the conclusion that flavor of both cookies per pack is same. This undermines the claim.

I and III is only present in E.

The arguments indicates correlation between size and flavor, but not for concentration or weight. I think statements II and III may not undermine the conclusion because concentration or weight of the 2nd type cookie does not have correlation to the 2 times the flavor of first type cookie. They are, perhaps, considered irrelevant.

However, statement I clearly shows the correlation that the flavor is equal amount in both types of cookies. So, the price per flavor of the first type cookie can not be any better than that of the second type cookie.

Therefore, A is the answer.

What is the source of question?

David@VeritasPrep wrote:What a great example of what Beat the GMAT can be -- two test takers with different ideas on a question helping each other!

My question is, what is the source of this question? It says "#30." It is a little unusual...

Hi David!

I got this question from a full test of crack-gmat.

all the options once at a time can undermine the statement.

Hi David,
How can option 3 undermine the appeal ?
Weight of the cookies has nothing to do with flavor and
we should not assume that there is a correlation here.

Suppose a cookie (choco) contains 1gm flavor+11gram (all other stuff)=12gm (Total)
and crunch-o contains 2gm flavor+ 4gm =6gm (Total).
The manufacturer would still claim that you got more flavor for your money.

Am I missing anything here ?

Thanks
TOP

Hey, I am with you that this not a great one here.

Option III is a bit rough: "Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie."

Okay so we are saying more flavor for you money and larger is more flavor. Right? So what does III tell us? Is "larger" a function of weight or surface area? I am not sure we are ready to determine that. So perhaps it does not undermine.

Like I said a bit of a strange one!

HI David,
Thanks a lot for confirming.


Can the topic poster paste the explanations given for this question?

Thanks,
TOP