Unlike juvenile diabetes, which is a genetic condition present from bi

This is a WEAKEN question.
What will weaken the conclusion that if govt does THAT, it will stem the spread of the disease? That is, it won't work.

M-GMAT guys please kindly explain the logic and semantics of options C and E. Tell us why one is right and the other is wrong.
Each weakens the conclusion on its's own.


C. If govt is promoting healthful food and the food providers are promoting unhealthful food, how will government's own promotion work against the food providers? Was it stated in the stem that government will go into food production and rival the food companies? IT definitely weakens the conclusion.
But the exercise part is not affected by C. So C has a grey area.

E. If many people can't by healthful food and exercise, then it won't work for those many people. Thus it weakens the conclusion a little. but we don't know about the rest of the many people who CAN. The CAN'Ts may be the most or the few affected but we don't know it bcos it wasn't stated. E has a grey area as well. What in the question stem or common sense could help us conclude that the many who can't afford exercise and healthful food are at least half of those affected by the disease in question? There's a word right there that SUGGESTS so-- INACTIVITY. But can we remotely conclude that the idler a person the less the person is likely to afford to pay for healthful food and exercise than a more active person? Does it preclude mental activity and implies only physical activity. Haven't we left the scope of the stem in telling whether to choose between C and E?

While C is stronger in neutralizing the healthful food part, E is stronger by adding exercise part. E wasn't as strong as C is weakening "healthful food"

So how was one chosen?

I think E might be the answer but maybe is an 800level question
More inputs

In general, I never question official answers but this is one, wherein I would respectfully disagree with the OA. Infact, I don't think this will EVER be correct on GMAT. The reasons are two-fold. Firstly, E assumes that exercise programs are the only way for the public to exercise. This seems to imply that if I don't join a gym, I can't exercise? I think that is a very poor assumption, no? Moreover, it says beyond the means of "many" people. Per GMAT terminology, many = 2 or more. How this can ever be correct is beyond me.

Here is my analysis:
• School health programs already educate middle-school students about the issue: "A" follows a common paradigm I have observed in several other similar questions - A is a proxy for saying that people are already aware of whatever the government plans to educate the public on. It is analogous to this: The government plans to curb smoking by educating people on the pitfalls .. But if you say the public is already aware of the pitfalls, it massively weakens the argument.
• The public already has access to this information through the Internet: Having access to some information is not the same as being informed and educated or knowledgeable about it.
• Food companies encourage the public to indulge in unhealthful snacks: I don't think anyone will even consider this
• The government has not set aside money for such a program: Out of scope
• Healthful foods and exercise programs are beyond the financial means of many people: As explained above, I seriously doubt this can be the right answer.


But I would greatly appreciate if someone could delineate where I am going wrong. souvik101990 GMATNinja

This is from Manhattan and not from the official guides. Having said that I think this question is correct.

Question is of type Weaken. The answer choices should weaken the conclusion.
You said - "Firstly, E assumes that exercise programs are the only way for the public to exercise."
No it does not. It says they are beyond the means of people.
It gives a possible answer which weakens the conclusion.

Many = 2 or more, that is correct!
But it can be a lot more than 2 as well. So in a lot of cases this will weaken the conclusion. This is good enough for a weaken type question. It does not need to destroy the argument, all it needs to do is weaken it.

With A there are a lot of issues.
A. School health programs already educate middle-school students about the issue.

1. We do not know if the school health programs have recently started, say 2 years back. If that is the case, then most adults would not be educated.
2. We do not know if adults need a refresher, as they might have forgotten as it was so long ago.
3. Even if we assume that the adults know this already (via middle school classes), it does not weaken the effectiveness of these adult classes. Think about it from a real life perspective, if someone reinforces the idea of drinking plenty of water and stay hydrated it would only help us. In our busy lives we might not pay attention to the benefits of water, even if we know it is good for us. So the person reminding us (here analogy for adult classes) is not undermining the effectiveness of it.

Does not (E) actualy behave as a strengther in the argument?
If suppose people do not have access to healthier lifestyle, then it goves more the reason for the goverment to intervene and promote healthcare and educate the people.

PRE-THINKING: The argument mentions thats "If the government wishes to stem the spread of the disease, it should educate the public about the dangers of an inactive, calorie-laden lifestyle and promote healthful diets and exercise.". The underlying assumption, which needs to be attacked to form a weakener, is that people do not have access to this information or even if they have they do not have any knowledge about it.

Option (B) mentions this perspective about the argument by saying that they already have access of this information and hence should be the weakener.

egmat Sajjad1994 Kindly please clarify my understanding

I think B is not a strong weakner.

B states "The public already has access to this information through the Internet."
Well one can surely argue that B weakens (maybe a lil bit ) but i dont think its a strong contender.

Let me give you a case-

Everyone has access to internet . So its true that everyone has access to wikipedia. But is it true that everyone visits Wikipedia ??
Ummm maybe .. maybe not. This is what i am talking about . We can''t really say people go through that stuff on internet even if they have access to those .

On the other hand E is a much stronger weakner. It clearly points out the flaw.

E states"Healthful foods and exercise programs are beyond the financial means of many people."
This truly undermines the argument . If this is true , no matter how much government try to educate public to eat healty and try to promote diets and exercise programs, people will not be able to follow up (because people lack resources).

Thus E.

Hope this helps.

Do correct me if I am wrong.

I was stuck between B and E. I could nit eliminate B because of the following reason:

Even if public has access to the info on internet, they are likely not practicing wellness measures. Clearly, occurrence of type-2 diabetes is increasing. Therefore, adding an additional measure by the Govt. may not add any value. Doesn't this weaken the argument? I don't think negation technique can be used for Weaken question. Is there any specific technique that I am not considering? Thanks.