Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
21 Dec 2024, 06:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
I would choose B.
The passage states that despite healthier school meals, childhood obesity hasn't decreased.
Option B directly addresses this by pointing out that school meals are only one part of a child's diet.
If children consume unhealthy foods outside of school, the positive impact of healthier school meals could be negated.
Let's look at why the other options are less helpful:
(A): Whether previous meals met old guidelines is irrelevant to why the new guidelines aren't having the desired effect.
(C): Menu language options don't explain the lack of impact on obesity.
(D): School objections don't explain why the regulations aren't effective, only that there's resistance. Even with objections, the regulations were implemented.
(E): This actually suggests the regulations might increase unhealthy eating, which contradicts the observation that there's no change in obesity rates. The passage indicates no change, not a worsening of the problem.
The passage states that despite healthier school meals, childhood obesity hasn't decreased.
Option B directly addresses this by pointing out that school meals are only one part of a child's diet.
If children consume unhealthy foods outside of school, the positive impact of healthier school meals could be negated.
Let's look at why the other options are less helpful:
(A): Whether previous meals met old guidelines is irrelevant to why the new guidelines aren't having the desired effect.
(C): Menu language options don't explain the lack of impact on obesity.
(D): School objections don't explain why the regulations aren't effective, only that there's resistance. Even with objections, the regulations were implemented.
(E): This actually suggests the regulations might increase unhealthy eating, which contradicts the observation that there's no change in obesity rates. The passage indicates no change, not a worsening of the problem.
21 Dec 2024, 06:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
This a resolve a paradox question -
(A) Before the new regulations were implemented, most school meals met the nutritional guidelines that were in place at that time.
Irrelevant to resolving the paradox. Doesn't matter what the school meals met prior to implementing the guidelines.
(B) Parents and guardians often provide children with additional snacks and meals that are not regulated by the school nutrition standards.
Alright, we know that apart from the healthy meals students also consume additional snacks. This could have led to the fact that no noticeable difference was identified. We can keep B
(C) The new regulations mandate that all school cafeterias implement menus in multiple languages.
Irrelevant to resolving the paradox. Eliminate C.
(D) Many schools have objected to the introduction of new regulations.
While many schools have objected, some may have implemented. Not relevant and out of scope. Eliminate D.
(E) The increase in food variety makes it harder for students to consistently choose healthier options.
This is a better option than B. The issue with B is we don't know the timeline. Parents might have provided those snacks and meals before and after the mandate. However, from Option E we know that the students are probably not choosing the healthier option because of the increase in variety.
Close call, but in my opinion Option E.
21 Dec 2024, 06:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
The discrepancy outlined in the scenario is that despite implementing new school meal nutrition regulations to reduce childhood obesity, obesity rates have not noticeably decreased. The best explanation would account for why these regulations alone might not have impacted children's overall caloric intake or weight.
The correct answer is:
(B) Parents and guardians often provide children with additional snacks and meals that are not regulated by the school nutrition standards.
Explanation:
Even if school meals are healthier and meet the new standards, children may still consume excess calories from unregulated snacks and meals provided by parents or obtained outside of school. This could offset the intended impact of the school meal regulations on obesity rates.
Why not the others?
(A): This might explain why the regulations were unnecessary but does not directly explain why obesity rates remained unchanged after the implementation.
(C): Language-related menu changes have no direct bearing on obesity rates.
(D): Schools objecting to the regulations does not explain why obesity rates did not decrease unless the regulations were not implemented at all, which the prompt does not suggest.
(E): Increased food variety might make choices harder, but the prompt indicates robust demand for school meals, suggesting that the healthier options were still consumed. This option is less compelling compared to (B).
The correct answer is:
(B) Parents and guardians often provide children with additional snacks and meals that are not regulated by the school nutrition standards.
Explanation:
Even if school meals are healthier and meet the new standards, children may still consume excess calories from unregulated snacks and meals provided by parents or obtained outside of school. This could offset the intended impact of the school meal regulations on obesity rates.
Why not the others?
(A): This might explain why the regulations were unnecessary but does not directly explain why obesity rates remained unchanged after the implementation.
(C): Language-related menu changes have no direct bearing on obesity rates.
(D): Schools objecting to the regulations does not explain why obesity rates did not decrease unless the regulations were not implemented at all, which the prompt does not suggest.
(E): Increased food variety might make choices harder, but the prompt indicates robust demand for school meals, suggesting that the healthier options were still consumed. This option is less compelling compared to (B).
