Spiddy wrote:
Hello
GMATNinjaCan you please help in eliminating option B
P.S: Maybe without using negation technique as it's too time-consuming and impractical to use in real test
Thanks in advance
Big Fan!
Agreed that the negation test isn't the way to go!
Here, we're looking for an assumption on which the argument
depends. So, we need an answer choice that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold any water.
Before diving into (B), first break down the structure of the argument:
The patron concludes that "the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons."
How does he/she reach that conclusion? First, the patron notices that the apples in the cafeteria are greasy (yikes). Then, he/she goes to talk to the cashier, who tells the patron that the apples came like that, and that "the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells."
The patron notes that "most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed." So, because the cafeteria doesn't wash the apples, the patron concludes that the apples are covered in pesticides.
Does (B) HAVE to be true in order for this argument to hold up?
Quote:
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
There is a serious issue with (B): notice that in the original argument the patron doesn't tie the greasiness of the apply directly to the pesticides. Sure, the greasiness is what caused the patron to complain in the first place -- but the "real" problem is that the cafeteria doesn't
wash the fruit that it receives. Maybe these are just greasy apples in their natural state, and the greasiness has nothing to do with the pesticides. Or maybe the apples become greasy because of how they're positioned in the cafeteria, and again, the greasiness and the pesticides are two separate issues. The patron would STILL have a valid argument that the cafeteria is selling dangerous apples.
The argument doesn't depends on the pesticides causing the greasiness, so (B) doesn't HAVE to be true in order for the argument to hold up.
Eliminate (B).
Compare that to (A):
Quote:
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
The patron's argument is "the cafeteria didn't wash the apples, so they must still be covered in pesticides!"
But wait -- what if the apples get washed BEFORE they arrive at the cafeteria? That would completely wreck the argument. So, it MUST be true that the apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(A) is the correct answer... but I still wouldn't recommend eating the apples from this cafeteria.
I hope that helps!