Critical Reasoning

Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III

(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
doesn't seem to undermine the advertisement.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
obvoius choice.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.
also undermines the advertisement.

D should be the answer.

IMO C

finance wrote:Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III

E

IMO B
What's the OA?

The OA is E. Can someone please explain how does the first statement undermine the advertisement??

finance wrote:The OA is E. Can someone please explain how does the first statement undermine the advertisement??

Since the advertisement reads, "Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies"... and Statement I undermines it because if "a packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price" then Choc-o cookies have the same or more amount of flavor than Crunch-o cookies.

i.e.

Crunch-o cookies = (4 grams of flavor/cookie) x (25 cookies/packet) = 100grams of flavor/packet

from Statement I:

Choc-o cookies = (2+ grams of flavor/cookie) x (50 cookies/packet) = 100+ grams of flavor/packet

Hope that Helps!:-D

BlindVision wrote:

finance wrote:The OA is E. Can someone please explain how does the first statement undermine the advertisement??

Since the advertisement reads, "Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies"... and Statement I undermines it because if "a packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price" then Choc-o cookies have the same or more amount of flavor than Crunch-o cookies.

i.e.

Crunch-o cookies = (4 grams of flavor/cookie) x (25 cookies/packet) = 100grams of flavor/packet

from Statement I:

Choc-o cookies = (2+ grams of flavor/cookie) x (50 cookies/packet) = 100+ grams of flavor/packet

Hope that Helps!:-D

BlindVision - But the argument nowhere suggest that the price of both the packets are same,so how it could be concluded.Please correct me if my reasoning is flawed!!

Hi Baand... true, the argument did not mention price, however, this is a Weaken-type of CR question. With these question-types, the correct answer should expose a faulty assumption or introduce new detracting evidence.

Statement I does that with "twice as many cookies" and "same price".

Hope that helps you out and may be we can get an expert to further elaborate...

Cheers!:-)

BlindVision wrote:Hi Baand... true, the argument did not mention price, however, this is a Weaken-type of CR question. With these question-types, the correct answer should expose a faulty assumption or introduce new detracting evidence.

Statement I does that with "twice as many cookies" and "same price".

Hope that helps you out and may be we can get an expert to further elaborate...

Cheers!:-)

Hey..you are absolutely correct man..i didn't read the first option completely - it clearly states that "at the same price"..!!and yes you are correct that with these type of question, if any option introduce any new evidence keeping itself in the context of the argument ,then that could be the valid one!

i really liked your name..cheers!!:)

Thank you, Baand!:-) I wish you all the best on your GMAT studies!...

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...

BlindVision wrote:

finance wrote:Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III

E

Well my answer was A. And I really did not understand how both II and III help to undermine the argument?

Is it correct to assume that the more it is concentrated the more flavour it has and the heavier it weighs, the more flavour it has?

I agree with you that bringing new info is ok as long as it stays within the context of the argument,but i did not understand why E is correct?!

Dear fellow members and experts,

I needed a huge help, I am writing GMAT on 11th August and that leaves me with 2 weeks of prep time. I have not been faring well in the CR section and needed some extra practice material other than OG and Verbal review which I have already completed but has not significantly helped to improve my accuracy in the section. I tried to buy the LSAT official papers but the minimum delivery time in India for the book is 15 days which has truly disheartened me. I will be highly obliged and greatly indebted if you can provide me links of difficult CR questions (LSAT) or some worthwhile download material which have explanations to help me master the section. I really don't have time and will appreciate a prompt reply.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers!
Kushagra

Ozlemg wrote:

BlindVision wrote:

finance wrote:Question # 30
Crunch-o cookies have twice as much flavor for your money as Choc-o cookies, and we show you how. A single Crunch-o cookie is twice as large as a single Choc-o cookie, and the larger the cookie, the more the flavor.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
(I) A packet of Choc-o contains twice as many cookies as a packet of Crunch-o at the same price.
(II) Choc-o has more concentrated flavor than Crunch-o.
(III) Despite being double in size a Crunch-o cookie weighs only 50% as much as a Choc-o Cookie.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(3) I and II only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II and III

E

Well my answer was A. And I really did not understand how both II and III help to undermine the argument?

Is it correct to assume that the more it is concentrated the more flavour it has and the heavier it weighs, the more flavour it has?

I agree with you that bringing new info is ok as long as it stays within the context of the argument,but i did not understand why E is correct?!

I agree with Ozlemg, I dont understand how B can undermine the argument?