Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 07 Dec 2016, 06:42

# Chicago-Booth

is Releasing R1 Admission Decisions | Keep Watch on App Tracker | Join Chat Room2 for Live Updates

### 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

# Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 648
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 500 [1] , given: 6

Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2009, 12:13
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly enjoyed the three meals he ate at the Tip-Top Restaurant, but, unfortunately, after each meal he became ill. The first time he ate an extra-large sausage pizza with a side order of hot pepper; the second time he took full advantage of the all-you-can-eat fried shrimp and hot peppers special; and the third time he had two of Tip-Top’s giant meatball sandwiches with hot peppers. Since the only food all three meals had in common was the hot peppers. Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill.

If both Monroe’s conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct, they would provide the strongest support for which one of the following?

(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
_________________

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

If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 372
Location: PDX
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 24

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2009, 14:01
So based on the argument conclusion, you are asked to arrive at a different conclusion among the answer choices.

Solely due to the red peppers, Monroe became ill - Using this as a premise what can be concluded ?

A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
This is the most strongly supported conclusions. As long as the peppers are absent - the sole reason for falling ill is taken out.

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
The conclusion has no correlation to the order of meals. First, second or third. So this cannot be supported.

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
Again, this option says 'will not become ill'. Will is a very strong word and no where in the argument or conclusion we come across this strength.

(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
This is plainly ruled out.

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
This is again OOS.
_________________

In the land of the night, the chariot of the sun is drawn by the grateful dead

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 985 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2009, 22:48
pbanavara wrote:
So based on the argument conclusion, you are asked to arrive at a different conclusion among the answer choices.

Solely due to the red peppers, Monroe became ill - Using this as a premise what can be concluded ?

A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
This is the most strongly supported conclusions. As long as the peppers are absent - the sole reason for falling ill is taken out.

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
The conclusion has no correlation to the order of meals. First, second or third. So this cannot be supported.

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
Again, this option says 'will not become ill'. Will is a very strong word and no where in the argument or conclusion we come across this strength.

(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
This is plainly ruled out.

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
This is again OOS.

C is the best
The argument does not dicussed "any of...specials", A out
_________________
Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2008
Posts: 37
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2009, 06:03
I think its B... Pls post OA
Intern
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2009, 09:24
pbanavara wrote:
So based on the argument conclusion, you are asked to arrive at a different conclusion among the answer choices.

Solely due to the red peppers, Monroe became ill - Using this as a premise what can be concluded ?

A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
This is the most strongly supported conclusions. As long as the peppers are absent - the sole reason for falling ill is taken out.

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
The conclusion has no correlation to the order of meals. First, second or third. So this cannot be supported.

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
Again, this option says 'will not become ill'. Will is a very strong word and no where in the argument or conclusion we come across this strength.

(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
This is plainly ruled out.

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
This is again OOS.

B is not stating only about the third meal, its talking about meals in general, since we know that Monroe is allergic (or ill-ergic ) to HOT PEPPERS, so we can conclude that whichever meal of his is complemented with HOT PEPPERS he is doomed to fall ill.
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 139
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2009, 17:04
pbanavara wrote:
So based on the argument conclusion, you are asked to arrive at a different conclusion among the answer choices.

Solely due to the red peppers, Monroe became ill - Using this as a premise what can be concluded ?

A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
This is the most strongly supported conclusions. As long as the peppers are absent - the sole reason for falling ill is taken out.

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
The conclusion has no correlation to the order of meals. First, second or third. So this cannot be supported.

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
Again, this option says 'will not become ill'. Will is a very strong word and no where in the argument or conclusion we come across this strength.

(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
This is plainly ruled out.

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
This is again OOS.

First of all here it is asked to support, and so C) is the best...Priyank please post OA.
Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 137
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2009, 00:16
(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers. The argument does not tell us that the can eat ANY of the specials. Out of the ingredients present in the three meals, he became sick only because of peppers but there could be some totally different ingredient that can induce sickness in him
(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.The argument doesnt tell us that eating hot peppers ALWAYS leads to sickness
(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.If he is having the dish that he has tried already and the sole reason of becoming ill is taken away, it is true that he wont fall sick. Correct!
(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.Not related
(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.Nonsensical!

Hence C

Priyankur..OA?
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 897
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 626 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2009, 00:01
Between A and C...but C is better than A.

Go with C...what is OA?
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 648
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2009, 06:16
OA is B.

C is too illogical because "If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal." - there could have other reason too such as pizza was not fresh and he became ill. - so can not hold

I selected A because I failed to understand the twist in the answer choice: "Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers."
- It says pretty same thing as C does

whereas B is clear: he can take anything A,B or C but, no pepper means no ill.
_________________

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

Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 91
Schools: McCombs Class of 2012
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2009, 13:17
what is the source for this question?
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2009, 08:06
Please provide the source, because something isn't right here. First of all, it looks like an LSAT question. Second, the OA doesn't make sense. Monroe's conclusion is "it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill". "Solely" means "only", and when we translate "only" into a formal logic "if-then" statement, "only" means "then". So if we rewrite his conclusion as an "if-then" statement, it becomes:

"If I become sick after eating at Tip-Top, then the hot peppers were the single cause of my illness."

The basic principle of "if-then" statements is that "If X, then Y" does NOT prove "If Y, then X", and it does NOT prove "If not X, then not Y". The only thing we can deduce from "If X, then Y" is the contrapositive: "If not Y, then not X".

Let's apply this to Monroe's conclusion. The contrapositive of his conclusion is "If I do not eat the hot peppers at Tip-Top, then I won't become sick." This logically supports (C): If he eats the big pizza without the hot peppers, he won't become sick.

Choice (B) is different: In order to support (B), we need the statement: "If I eat hot peppers at Tip-Top, then I will become sick." This does NOT follow from his conclusion: If we express his conclusion in shorthand as "If X, then Y", then this statement is "If Y, then X".

Another way to express the same explanation is this: When Monroe says that it is SOLELY (only) the hot peppers that made him sick, the literal meaning is that nothing ELSE could have made him sick. It is critical to realize that this is NOT the same as saying that the hot peppers ALWAYS make him sick (which is what we would need to support (B)).

What is the source?
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Current Student
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 372
Location: India
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2009, 17:09
Only thing I got from the premises is that if he is not ill then he dint hot peppers.

Unfortunately there is no answer that supports above logic.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2009, 22:59
grumpyoldman wrote:
Please provide the source, because something isn't right here. First of all, it looks like an LSAT question. Second, the OA doesn't make sense. Monroe's conclusion is "it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill". "Solely" means "only", and when we translate "only" into a formal logic "if-then" statement, "only" means "then". So if we rewrite his conclusion as an "if-then" statement, it becomes:

"If I become sick after eating at Tip-Top, then the hot peppers were the single cause of my illness."

The basic principle of "if-then" statements is that "If X, then Y" does NOT prove "If Y, then X", and it does NOT prove "If not X, then not Y". The only thing we can deduce from "If X, then Y" is the contrapositive: "If not Y, then not X".

Let's apply this to Monroe's conclusion. The contrapositive of his conclusion is "If I do not eat the hot peppers at Tip-Top, then I won't become sick." This logically supports (C): If he eats the big pizza without the hot peppers, he won't become sick.

Choice (B) is different: In order to support (B), we need the statement: "If I eat hot peppers at Tip-Top, then I will become sick." This does NOT follow from his conclusion: If we express his conclusion in shorthand as "If X, then Y", then this statement is "If Y, then X".

Another way to express the same explanation is this: When Monroe says that it is SOLELY (only) the hot peppers that made him sick, the literal meaning is that nothing ELSE could have made him sick. It is critical to realize that this is NOT the same as saying that the hot peppers ALWAYS make him sick (which is what we would need to support (B)).

What is the source?

OA is B

this question is in the Power Score LSAT course material
Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 158
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2009, 09:15
IMO B .. no peppers no sickness.. clears
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2009, 09:48
So this question comes from a PowerScore LSAT course -- can you find out whether it is an actual LSAT question which they reprinted in the course, or a question which PowerScore created themselves?

The difference is extremely important. If it is a real LSAT question, I would like to follow up with the LSAC and ask them to explain why the answer is (B). It doesn't make sense. If the question was created by PowerScore, it's not an issue: They simply screwed up.

My advice is to NEVER use so-called "LSAT questions" which are made up by the publisher/course provider. Unlike the GMAC, the LSAC does allow publishers and course providers to license and reprint their retired questions. There are so many of these real questions that there is no need to look at imitation LSAT questions.

Imitation LSAT questions are just not reliable. The first time I saw imitation questions was when a tutoring student showed me a McGraw-Hill LSAT book. She did not say that the questions were imitation, but when I tried to explain some of the "wrong" answers that she had chosen, I saw that the questions were badly composed. They were so bad that I thought they could not be real questions, so I looked at the introductory chapter to check. Sure enough, the questions were made up by McGraw-Hill.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2009, 11:02
grumpyoldman wrote:
So this question comes from a PowerScore LSAT course -- can you find out whether it is an actual LSAT question which they reprinted in the course, or a question which PowerScore created themselves?

The difference is extremely important. If it is a real LSAT question, I would like to follow up with the LSAC and ask them to explain why the answer is (B). It doesn't make sense. If the question was created by PowerScore, it's not an issue: They simply screwed up.

My advice is to NEVER use so-called "LSAT questions" which are made up by the publisher/course provider. Unlike the GMAC, the LSAC does allow publishers and course providers to license and reprint their retired questions. There are so many of these real questions that there is no need to look at imitation LSAT questions.

Imitation LSAT questions are just not reliable. The first time I saw imitation questions was when a tutoring student showed me a McGraw-Hill LSAT book. She did not say that the questions were imitation, but when I tried to explain some of the "wrong" answers that she had chosen, I saw that the questions were badly composed. They were so bad that I thought they could not be real questions, so I looked at the introductory chapter to check. Sure enough, the questions were made up by McGraw-Hill.

There is no mention either way, but it is part of the practice section and not part of the LSAT practice test. My guess would be that Power Score made this one up. Its in book 1 of the full length course in the Must Be True section
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 648
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2009, 04:30
grumpyoldman wrote:
Please provide the source, because something isn't right here. First of all, it looks like an LSAT question. Second, the OA doesn't make sense. Monroe's conclusion is "it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill". "Solely" means "only", and when we translate "only" into a formal logic "if-then" statement, "only" means "then". So if we rewrite his conclusion as an "if-then" statement, it becomes:

"If I become sick after eating at Tip-Top, then the hot peppers were the single cause of my illness."

The basic principle of "if-then" statements is that "If X, then Y" does NOT prove "If Y, then X", and it does NOT prove "If not X, then not Y". The only thing we can deduce from "If X, then Y" is the contrapositive: "If not Y, then not X".

Let's apply this to Monroe's conclusion. The contrapositive of his conclusion is "If I do not eat the hot peppers at Tip-Top, then I won't become sick." This logically supports (C): If he eats the big pizza without the hot peppers, he won't become sick.

Choice (B) is different: In order to support (B), we need the statement: "If I eat hot peppers at Tip-Top, then I will become sick." This does NOT follow from his conclusion: If we express his conclusion in shorthand as "If X, then Y", then this statement is "If Y, then X".

Another way to express the same explanation is this: When Monroe says that it is SOLELY (only) the hot peppers that made him sick, the literal meaning is that nothing ELSE could have made him sick. It is critical to realize that this is NOT the same as saying that the hot peppers ALWAYS make him sick (which is what we would need to support (B)).

What is the source?

I got this question from LSAT's retired test and this question was composed by kaplan. I do not know whether Kaplan added any toppings on it. I've seen Kaplan explanation for this question and they say answer should be B.....
_________________

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 267
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2009, 10:23
I think we have to choose between choice B and C.....I think I will choose B since it will be riskier to bank upon the probability of not getting ill...
_________________

Choose Life

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2009, 10:57
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly enjoyed the three meals he ate at the Tip-Top Restaurant, but, unfortunately, after each meal he became ill. The first time he ate an extra-large sausage pizza with a side order of hot pepper; the second time he took full advantage of the all-you-can-eat fried shrimp and hot peppers special; and the third time he had two of Tip-Top’s giant meatball sandwiches with hot peppers. Since the only food all three meals had in common was the hot peppers. Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill.

If both Monroe’s conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct, they would provide the strongest support for which one of the following?

(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.

He concludes that hot Pepper causes his illness. But he does not eliminate other factors such as Cake, Piazza, Shrimp, etc might afffect him.

So, all of A, C, and D have issue.

B is the best anwer.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 305 [0], given: 106

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2009, 21:40
Nice One.

Guessed wrong but now agree with B.
Illness is sure with hot pepper and not the vice verse, i.e., illness may or may not be possible without hot peppers. So A and C are out and B stands.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Last edited by sudeep on 14 Jun 2009, 00:59, edited 1 time in total.
Re: CR: Monroe's appetite   [#permalink] 13 Jun 2009, 21:40

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly 12 29 Nov 2011, 12:27
1 Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly 15 05 Mar 2010, 22:59
Despite the fact that the health-inspection procedures for 7 20 Nov 2008, 16:57
Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly 9 15 Oct 2007, 16:48
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for 7 19 Jul 2007, 11:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by