|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[1] , given: 66
|
One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to [#permalink]
 31 Mar 2008, 05:20
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Thus, a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food
(B) A child’s taste preferences usually changes between age one and age two.
(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.
(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant?
(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2998
Followers: 48
Kudos [?]:
389
[0], given: 210
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 06:10
I think its A. The argument is : a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed toNow the only option of the 5 that can totally destroy this argument is the opposite of A. If two year olds naturally preferred salty food then this guys assertion breaks completely. suyashjhawar wrote: One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Thus, a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food
(B) A child’s taste preferences usually changes between age one and age two.
(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.
(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant?
(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 0
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 06:56
I select B.
But I know its wrong , bacause I know the ans as I tried it few days ago.
I don't understand why we want to break the conclusion in the "Assumption" Q. A for me is correct for stem like
"most seriously waekens the above conclusion" etc ....
But for assuption we go with the conclusion and try to point out something which links premises to conlusion.
B seems to fit the most , saying that in 1-2 year the child will change the preference, this is an assumption
for me.
But yes, out of the 5 options "contenders" are A and B only.
So if we find a flaw in B , we are oblidged to select A.
I think the flaw in B is the use of uncertainity = "usually" and in the stimulus it is "will change". The tone changes...... this is the reason to eliminate B ... I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1447
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
136
[1] , given: 12
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 08:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
B is wrong because if it were true , then the argument would fall apart. If they naturally change taste preferences, then the argument stating that taste preference is based on experience would be shattered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 0
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 09:19
The way I think of B is not that the "taste" changes by itself. But only on circumstances the "taste" can change. I mean, if the child is never given salty it cannot develop taste for salty ... isn't it ? So the argument remains valid with option B. But even if I consider what you say to shatter the argument, the A does the same too !!!! One small note : Please consider my writting as a plead to be clear. If I sound very stupid its GMAT beast killing me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 455
Location: Earth
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
36
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 09:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
I go with A.
It sounds obvious that one does not need to affect childs taste if child is anyway gonna prefer salty at the end of 2 years. So A has to be assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 66
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 12:09
Oa is a...i went for b...now its clear...thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2998
Followers: 48
Kudos [?]:
389
[0], given: 210
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
31 Mar 2008, 14:19
As terp said earlier, B would break the argument straight away. We need something whose OPPOSITE breaks the argument, which is A. huntgmat wrote: I select B.
But I know its wrong , bacause I know the ans as I tried it few days ago.
I don't understand why we want to break the conclusion in the "Assumption" Q. A for me is correct for stem like
"most seriously waekens the above conclusion" etc ....
But for assuption we go with the conclusion and try to point out something which links premises to conlusion.
B seems to fit the most , saying that in 1-2 year the child will change the preference, this is an assumption
for me.
But yes, out of the 5 options "contenders" are A and B only.
So if we find a flaw in B , we are oblidged to select A.
I think the flaw in B is the use of uncertainity = "usually" and in the stimulus it is "will change". The tone changes...... this is the reason to eliminate B ... I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 317
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 1
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
01 Apr 2008, 02:12
suyashjhawar wrote: One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Thus, a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food
(B) A child’s taste preferences usually changes between age one and age two.
(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.
(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant?
(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food I'll say choice A. COnclusion: a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to. Premise: If one feeds a child salty food instead of sweet food then in a period over a year the child will prefer salty food to sweet food. Clearly inorder for this statement to hold it must be true that two year olds do not naturally prefer salty foods to sweet foods, if they naturally do then the argument falls apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 207
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
09 May 2008, 12:57
Although, I can understand why the OA is A, I still can not completely discredit B. If a child's taste preference do not usually chage between age one and two, then wouldnt the conclusion that 'a young child's taste preference can be affected by the type of food he/she has been exposed to' fall apart? --> whether they are exposed or not, does not matter since they do not change their taste preference so they must not be affected by the food he/she has been exposed to??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 133
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
09 May 2008, 13:17
suyashjhawar wrote: One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Thus, a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A)Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food
(B) A child’s taste preferences usually changes between age one and age two.
>> This does not relate to the assumption of the argument in any way.
(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.
>> Opposite of the argument.
(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant?
>> Out of scope.
(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food
>> out of scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1946
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
168
[0], given: 1
|
Re: cr...plz explain [#permalink]
09 May 2008, 18:55
gmat blows wrote: Although, I can understand why the OA is A, I still can not completely discredit B. If a child's taste preference do not usually chage between age one and two, then wouldnt the conclusion that 'a young child's taste preference can be affected by the type of food he/she has been exposed to' fall apart? --> whether they are exposed or not, does not matter since they do not change their taste preference so they must not be affected by the food he/she has been exposed to?? It is somewhat difficult to explain. I try this way! The Flaw of this argument is " what the child was fed at age-one will be exactly
what she or he chooses to feed at age-two". During one year, from age-one to age-two, author must assume that there is nothing affecting on her/his preference or the child's taste preference did not change. Stop! Let see B. The taste preference of the child usually changes during that one year. Do you relize that B points out the flaw of this argument?. Thus, B weakens the argument, not assumption of it, right?
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: cr...plz explain
[#permalink]
09 May 2008, 18:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
