|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are [#permalink]
 13 Sep 2006, 02:49
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria’s patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.
_________________
A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 123
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is B.
The patron is assuming that the greasy substance on the apple is pesticide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
yeah..B provides the connecting link between greasiness and pesticides.
_________________
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 80
Location: New York City
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Answer B .... 
_________________
'Hakuna matata'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
i think it's b too. i thought it was c at first...
Last edited by seongbae on 13 Sep 2006, 07:22, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 482
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
B it is....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 533
Location: US
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
yeah B it is...
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1278
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
Conclusion: Cafeteria is engangering its patrons by selling greasy apples, because most fruits are sprayed with pesticides.
If the pesticides which leave a greasy residue cannot be washed off then the cafeteria cannot wash them off either. So the cafeteria could not be endangering its patrons intentionally.
B is close as it says that most pesticides leave a greasy residue. What if the pesticide sprayed (if at all) on the apples does not leave a greasy residue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 379
Location: Phoenix AZ
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is A. If i negate A, the argument falls apart. The grease could be because of the transportation, and not the pesticides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is A. If i negate A, the argument falls apart. The grease could be because of the transportation, and not the pesticides.
Can u elaborate how u chose (A).
_________________
A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 533
Location: US
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
rethink ---
I think answer is A. If we negate A then the argument falls apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 791
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
sangarelli wrote: I think it is A. If i negate A, the argument falls apart. The grease could be because of the transportation, and not the pesticides.
Can u elaborate how u chose (A).
The conclusion of the question stem is that the fruit is pesticide covered because it is not washed at the cafeteria. However, it would not be the case if it were washed after harvest, but before being transported to the cafeteria.
A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
paddyboy wrote: sangarelli wrote: I think it is A. If i negate A, the argument falls apart. The grease could be because of the transportation, and not the pesticides.
Can u elaborate how u chose (A). The conclusion of the question stem is that the fruit is pesticide covered because it is not washed at the cafeteria. However, it would not be the case if it were washed after harvest, but before being transported to the cafeteria. A. I don't understand why you choose A.
The conclusion is that the apples sold are dangerous because not washed, thus covered with pesticides.
A says that there are washed. So following the argument of the patron, they are pesticides free....
Am I m missing something?
Anyway I go for C after long thoughts.
C says not washe apples are endangering patrons.
That means that at least many patrons are not aware that apples are not washed, because if they'd know, they would wash them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 386
Location: TX
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Looks like its A.
Negate A and its destroys any connection between pesticides and apples being greasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
I am going for 'B'
Assumption :-
Facts:- Fruits are greasy
Sellers dont wash the apples
Some or Many might know this or the vice-versa. Because the patron asks the sellers, if he had already knew he wouldn't ask. Again Many is still open ended
Get rid of pesticides by washing them
Assumption:-
Greasiness on the apples are pesticides
This can be washed off (that is arguments conclusion)
[/b]
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
B for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
sangarelli wrote: Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria’s patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.
"The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy" is a fact.
"Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons" is a conclusion.
Some statement has to connect these. We need a statement that says that greasiness is due to pesticides. B says precisely that.
No?
_________________
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
VERY close between A and B.
I'm went for B. Not sure though - I dont like 'most' 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Guyz the OA is (A).
_________________
A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
1. Apples not washed before sold.
2. Pesticides on apples before harvest
3. Apples dangerous until washed = if apples are washed then not dangerous
Conclusion1: Apples sold are pesticide-covered
Conclusion2 : Apples are dangerous.
A says:
- apples are not washed after harvest. If they were washed after harvest, then no pesticides, then not dangerous. So the argument could stand.
- BUT they are washed before reaching the cafeteria. So it is the equivalent to the preceding point, that the apples are washed after harvest, so are not anymore pesticide-covered. With respect to this point, the patron cannot use it as an assumption and say they are not washed, because actually they are washed!!!???
Some of you say that by negating A, the arg falls.
So let negate it :
Non A= apples are washed after harvest but not before reaching the cafeteria.
I don't see any difference between negating or not negating A. Both, so far I understand, cannot be used as assumption...
Can someone please enlighten me and tell me what is wrong in my reasonning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
