eka9045 wrote:
harshey77 wrote:
Why not option A?
If we use the negation technique, the sentence becomes - The chemicals does not affect anyone who drinks Cheetah???s Sweet???s zero calorie line.
Now this harms the conclusion as well which says," Since chemicals are known to deleterious effect on the body, athletes would be better served by consuming regular cheetah Sweet instead.
Need to know how to eliminate A here.
I too have the same query! Need to know how to tackle these type of questions.
Analogy: Candy A contains sugar, while Candy B contains Chemical X and Y to bring the sweet taste --> go for Candy A
This is the exact thing that's happening in the argument (however, here we are not sure wherever those chemicals are present in the Regular one, but that doesn't make any difference either). The point the argument is trying to prove - Regular Cheetah Sweet is better than the diet one because [of reasons stated....]
Now A has two potential problems:
1. We don't know whether the "affect" is positive or negative. If it's positive, then the whole argument is at stake.
2. "anyone" - The logical opposite of anyone [=all] is some [ anything between 1 - 99 in a sample space of 100]. So, for a sample of 1 and 99, you will have two different possibilities. This is the exact reason why you should be always wary of this kind of words in a Necessary assumptions question. While they are perfectly fine for Sufficient Assumption.
The key here is that you don't even have to get to #2 if you have attention to the right details.
devavrat wrote:
Why cant Option B be right?
If option B is assumed, it shows that the chemicals cannot be removed from the drink and hence the normal drink is needed. If the chemicals could be removed then there was no need of switching back to the normal drink
Option D says that sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than chemicals. More deleterious effect means it still has an effect so either way the athletes should stop consuming the drink
Can someone pls explain
Posted from my mobile device
Yes, you are dealing with possibility, and we don't consider possibility when we deal with an argument, unless the argument allows us to do that.
Cheers !