E

B gives another cause for higher fat intake by families in which parents live with children. Therefore IMO B
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

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

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.

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.
_________________

iOS/Android: GMAT ToolKit - The bestselling GMAT prep app | GMAT Club (free) | PrepGame | GRE ToolKit | LSAT ToolKit
PROMO: Are you an exiting GMAT ToolKit (iOS) user? Get GMAT ToolKit 2 (iOS) for free* (read more)
Math: GMAT Math Book ||| General: GMATTimer ||| Chicago Booth: Slide Presentation
The People Who Are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World, Are the Ones Who Do.

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.

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. ~~~

Thanks "fiesta",

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

. 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:



You are strenthening the argument. Since you agrees that eating high fat foods causes high fat intake.
_________________

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Thanks a lot for your explanation sir! It was very much required.

Needless to say, +1.


Regards,
Technext

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.