Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 03 May 2015, 05:33

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A recent study demonstrated that parents living with

Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Followers: 57

Kudos [?]: 244 [0], given: 17

A recent study demonstrated that parents living with [#permalink]  10 Mar 2009, 21:14
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

63% (01:33) correct 38% (02:19) wrong based on 5 sessions
A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake?

A. On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children. B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. C. Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. D. Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters. E. Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children. ============== Source:manhattan Dont have the OA but lets discuss.logic is not that tough. _________________ Manager Joined: 27 Feb 2009 Posts: 62 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0 Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink] 10 Mar 2009, 21:25 E SVP Joined: 04 May 2006 Posts: 1936 Schools: CBS, Kellogg Followers: 19 Kudos [?]: 440 [0], given: 1 Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink] 11 Mar 2009, 02:40 nitya34 wrote: A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake? A. On average, households with children spend$15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children.
B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children.
C. Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household.
D. Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters.
E. Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.
==============
Source:manhattan
Dont have the OA but lets discuss.logic is not that tough.

I found it interesting too

C is the best
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 261
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 9

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  13 Mar 2009, 07:02
B gives another cause for higher fat intake by families in which parents live with children. Therefore IMO B
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3578
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 406

Kudos [?]: 2140 [0], given: 359

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  13 Mar 2009, 12:41
Expert's post
Agree with rampuria - B (another cause)
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 652
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 236 [0], given: 6

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  14 Mar 2009, 00:17
B and C are the strong candidates.

B says that households are spending on "whole milk" - Ok so this is another reason for high fat but does it weaken the statemenent that "pizzas" are culprit!!
C. Children consume most pizzas - It means that buying habit does not prove that owner will consume also...hence weakens the argument.

IMO C.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 497
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 1

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  14 Mar 2009, 19:42
nitya34 wrote:
A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake?

A. On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children. B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. C. Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. D. Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters. E. Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children. ============== Source:manhattan Dont have the OA but lets discuss.logic is not that tough. I would go with B. If the households with children purchase more whole milk, which has a high fat content, it weaken the conclusion that the high fat intake is attributed to the snacking of pizza and cookies. It could be well from the milk. All other answer choice does not have the impact to the conclusion. VP Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 1300 Followers: 13 Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 0 Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink] 14 Mar 2009, 22:53 My choice is B. This attacks the argument which syas that pizzas and cookies are the main source of fats and hence the reason of more consumption of fats among adults. But B says Whole milk is another source of high fat content. I didnt chose C bcos children may consume most of the pizzas and cookes but the other part is still consumed by adults. Hence they are tsill having more fat contents as compared to the adults without children. nitya34 wrote: A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake? A. On average, households with children spend$15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children.
B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children.
C. Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household.
D. Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters.
E. Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.
==============
Source:manhattan
Dont have the OA but lets discuss.logic is not that tough.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1936
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 440 [0], given: 1

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  17 Mar 2009, 23:43
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
B and C are the strong candidates.

B says that households are spending on "whole milk" - Ok so this is another reason for high fat but does it weaken the statemenent that "pizzas" are culprit!!
C. Children consume most pizzas - It means that buying habit does not prove that owner will consume also...hence weakens the argument.

IMO C.

Agree with you C, but not B

B strengthens rather than weakens.

Argument: eating FAT food (pizza and cookie)---> high fat intake

One way to weaken is: NOT eating FAT food ---> STILL high fat intake. So only C nearly implies the meaning above. Furthermore, in order C is the best candidate that weakens strongly the argument, "most" in C should be "all".

Say something about B: you cannot imply that "purchase much more whole milk" means "snacking much more whole milk". PURCHASE and SNACK are different.

1. if you assume: PURCHASE is the same as SNACK, B strenthens argument.
2. if you assume: PURCHASE is different from SNACK, B is outside of scope.

Comment welcomes!
_________________
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3578
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 406

Kudos [?]: 2140 [0], given: 359

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  18 Mar 2009, 00:05
Expert's post
sondenso wrote:
..."most" in C should be "all".

That is why C is not a good choice in my opinion. It is possible to say: children in house - a bit of pizza for adults, no children in house - no pizza for adults.
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 906
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 18

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  18 Mar 2009, 02:45
Agree with sondenso's explanation.
C..
What is OA?
sondenso wrote:
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
B and C are the strong candidates.

B says that households are spending on "whole milk" - Ok so this is another reason for high fat but does it weaken the statemenent that "pizzas" are culprit!!
C. Children consume most pizzas - It means that buying habit does not prove that owner will consume also...hence weakens the argument.

IMO C.

Agree with you C, but not B

B strengthens rather than weakens.

Argument: eating FAT food (pizza and cookie)---> high fat intake

One way to weaken is: NOT eating FAT food ---> STILL high fat intake. So only C nearly implies the meaning above. Furthermore, in order C is the best candidate that weakens strongly the argument, "most" in C should be "all".

Say something about B: you cannot imply that "purchase much more whole milk" means "snacking much more whole milk". PURCHASE and SNACK are different.

1. if you assume: PURCHASE is the same as SNACK, B strenthens argument.
2. if you assume: PURCHASE is different from SNACK, B is outside of scope.

Comment welcomes!
Intern
Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  18 Mar 2009, 03:19
I can find B is the close answer since to weaken the explaination
"The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children." we have to find the alternative to this which is nothing but option B "Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children." So definitely pizza and cookies are not the reason for high fat rather it is for Milk.

If you look the option C --- the world MOST is not quantifiable. Here most means Parents with children still consume some part of Pizza and cookies. That small portion may be enough to cause excess fat.
Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 10
Schools: IIMA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  18 Mar 2009, 21:07
yes i also with B. conclusion is cookies and pizza are the cause for the high fat, but B indicates that its not cookies and pizza but the whole milk with high fat is the cause, cause other than presented in conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 111
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 152 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  18 Mar 2009, 23:06
1
KUDOS
A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake?

Explanation:
----------------------
A) On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children. ---> Not relevant. If anything, it will strengthen the explanation. B) Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. ---> This gives another reason that may be behind the parents’ (living with children) higher intake of fat. C) Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. ---> I guess everyone with the following: 1. Author has no doubt that parents living with children have a higher intake of fat than those adults who stay without children. 2. Author is trying to provide reason for the above observation by attributing their (parents) higher intake of fat to pizzas & cookies (yum-yum). Option C mentions the word most, which I think is equivalent to almost all. Now if the children consume almost everything then parents will be left with almost nothing. If it is so, then it will actually mean that parents (staying with children) don’t have comparably higher intake of fat than those adults who live without children. This will actually violate point 1, thus going against the author’s view that parents staying with children have a higher intake of fat. If point 1 is violated in the first place then how are we going to focus on point 2, which is the main point of discussion? The whole point focuses on the reason for higher intake of fat & NOT whether parents with children have a higher intake than those adults who stay without children. So, discard this option. D) Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters. ---> Yes, they ought to but do they? And even if they do so, it goes against the author’s view that parents staying with children have a higher intake of fat than those who are staying without children. E) Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children. ---> Inconclusive. ---------------------- I go with option B. Hope that helps. Regards, Technext _________________ +++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++ +++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++ ~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~ Manager Joined: 15 Jul 2008 Posts: 55 Followers: 2 Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 2 Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink] 19 Mar 2009, 00:04 My choice is C [quote="nitya34"]A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake? A. On average, households with children spend$15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children.
B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. >>> if choose B, we have to assume that the more milk parents buy the more they drink, so it is no reasonable
C. Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. >>> is ok, it breaks the assumption that the more pizza and cookies is available the more parents eat

D. Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters.
E. Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.
==============
Source:manhattan
Conclusion: parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children
Evidence: the higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.
Assumption: the assumption that the more pizza and cookies is available the more parents eat
So the option C breaks the assumption, therefore it weakens the conclusion.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1936
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 440 [0], given: 1

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  19 Mar 2009, 00:53
Thanks "fiesta",

Anyway, just give some more words for "Technext":

Technext wrote:
Option C mentions the word most, which I think is equivalent to almost all. Now if the children consume almost everything then parents will be left with almost nothing.
. Stop here and you should realize that ANOTHER THING rather than SNACKING pizza of the children available CAUSES the high fat intake. You have ALREADY weaken the argument.

But if your reasoning continues like:

Technext wrote:
it will actually mean that parents (staying with children) don’t have comparably higher intake of fat than those adults who live without children.

You are strenthening the argument. Since you agrees that eating high fat foods causes high fat intake.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 83 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  19 Mar 2009, 15:18
1
KUDOS
Definitely (B), definitely not (C).

Notice that the conclusion we are trying to weaken is a cause-and-effect claim: Snacking on pizza and cookies is the CAUSE of the higher fat intake among parents with children (compared to adults without children). The question makes it clear that we must attack the cause-and-effect relationship when it tells us to weaken NOT the statement that these parents consume more fat, but the EXPLANATION for this fact.

By far the most common way to weaken a cause-and-effect conclusion is to provide information that makes a different cause possible or likely. We don't have to PROVE that the different cause is correct; we just have to show that it is possible. In this case, we are looking for a different possible reason why the parents with children could consume more fat than adults without children.

(B) clearly provides a different possible reason: There is more whole milk in the house, and whole milk has more fat than other milk. We do not have to assume or prove that the parents actually drink that milk; we weaken the argument as soon as we show that there is another possible source (other than pizza and cookies) for their higher fat intake.

(C) does not affect the argument one way or the other. "Most" does not mean "almost all"; it means "over 50%". (This aspect of the question is somewhat LSAT-like.) The fact that children consume "most" of the pizza and cookies does not eliminate the remaining amount of pizza and cookies as a cause for the parents' high fat intake, and it does not present any alternative cause.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 111
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  19 Mar 2009, 22:29
Thanks a lot for your explanation sir! It was very much required.

Needless to say, +1.

Regards,
Technext
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 557
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  28 Feb 2010, 18:13
This is Manhattan question and OA is B. Initially I also choose C. But I was wrong.
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 12

Re: CR-Manhattan [#permalink]  01 Mar 2010, 09:24
Nice question. This proved we need to read the question more carefully.
"most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake" - this is asking which statement would weaken the explanation of parent's higher fat intake and not the statement that weakens the arguement as a whole.
Great explanations from all of you.
Re: CR-Manhattan   [#permalink] 01 Mar 2010, 09:24

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In a study of the behavior of adolescents to parental 1 02 Jan 2013, 00:26
4 Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot 8 24 May 2010, 19:55
A recent study demonstrated that parents living with 3 01 May 2010, 00:35
Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with 6 24 May 2009, 06:00
Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with 5 18 Jun 2005, 08:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by