A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume

Question

A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake?

(A) On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children.

(B) Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children.

(C) Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household.

(D) Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters.

(E) Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.

Technext · Accepted Answer

A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously  weaken  this explanation of the parents' higher fat intake?

Explanation :
----------------------
 A ) On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children. ---> Not relevant. If anything, it will strengthen the explanation.

B ) Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. ---> This gives another reason that may be behind the parents’ (living with children) higher intake of fat.

C ) Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. ---> I guess everyone with the following:
 1 . Author has  no doubt  that parents living with children have a higher intake of fat than those adults who stay without children.
 2 . Author is  trying to provide reason for the above observation  by attributing their (parents) higher intake of fat to pizzas & cookies (yum-yum).

Option  C  mentions the word  most , which I think is equivalent to  almost all . Now if the children consume   almost everything   then parents will be left with   almost nothing  .  If it is so, then it will actually mean that parents (staying with children) don’t have comparably higher intake of fat than those adults who live without children. This will actually violate point 1, thus going against the author’s view that parents staying with children have a higher intake of fat . If point 1 is violated in the first place then how are we going to focus on point 2, which is the main point of discussion?

The whole point focuses on the  reason for higher intake of fat  & NOT  whether parents with children have a higher intake than those adults who stay without children  . So, discard this option.

D ) Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters. ---> Yes, they ought to but do they? And even if they do so, it goes against the author’s view that parents staying with children have a higher intake of fat than those who are staying without children.

E ) Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children. ---> Inconclusive.
----------------------

I go with option  B .

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Technext

rampuria · Answer

B gives another cause for higher fat intake by families in which parents live with children. Therefore IMO B

nevergiveup · Answer

I would go with B. If the households with children purchase more whole milk, which has a high fat content, it weaken the conclusion that the high fat intake is attributed to the snacking of pizza and cookies. It could be well from the milk. All other answer choice does not have the impact to the conclusion.

ritula · Answer

My choice is B. This attacks the argument which syas that pizzas and cookies are the main source of fats and hence the reason of more consumption of fats among adults. But B says Whole milk is another source of high fat content.
I didnt chose C bcos children may consume most of the pizzas and cookes but the other part is still consumed by adults. Hence they are tsill having more fat contents as compared to the adults without children.

Maverick2008 · Answer

I can find  B  is the close answer since to weaken the explaination
"The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children." we have to find the alternative to this which is nothing but option B "Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children." So definitely pizza and cookies are not the reason for high fat rather it is for Milk.

If you look the option  C  --- the world MOST is not quantifiable. Here most means Parents with children still consume some part of Pizza and cookies. That small portion may be enough to cause excess fat.

grumpyoldman · Answer

Definitely (B), definitely not (C).

Notice that the conclusion we are trying to weaken is a cause-and-effect claim: Snacking on pizza and cookies is the CAUSE of the higher fat intake among parents with children (compared to adults without children). The question makes it clear that we must attack the cause-and-effect relationship when it tells us to weaken NOT the statement that these parents consume more fat, but the EXPLANATION for this fact.

By far the most common way to weaken a cause-and-effect conclusion is to provide information that makes a different cause possible or likely. We don't have to PROVE that the different cause is correct; we just have to show that it is possible. In this case, we are looking for a different possible reason why the parents with children could consume more fat than adults without children.

(B) clearly provides a different possible reason: There is more whole milk in the house, and whole milk has more fat than other milk. We do not have to assume or prove that the parents actually drink that milk; we weaken the argument as soon as we show that there is another possible source (other than pizza and cookies) for their higher fat intake.

(C) does not affect the argument one way or the other. "Most" does not mean "almost all"; it means "over 50%". (This aspect of the question is somewhat LSAT-like.) The fact that children consume "most" of the pizza and cookies does not eliminate the remaining amount of pizza and cookies as a cause for the parents' high fat intake, and it does not present any alternative cause.

BillyZ · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION 
The first sentence is a premise, which we can take as a statement of fact. The second sentence is a claim made by the author: that the source of the extra fat grams is pizza and cookies. We are asked to weaken this claim;  note that we need to tear down the  conclusion , not the premise .

(A)  Strengthen . This choice supports the conclusion with evidence that households with children tend to have more pizza and cookies present.

( B )  CORRECT . Weaken. This choice presents  whole milk  as an alternative source for the extra grams of fat, and thereby weakens the conclusion that the extra fat   must   be from pizza and cookies.

(C)  Irrelevant . Children may consume most of the pizza and cookies, but the remainder could be consumed by their parents. This answer choice does not provide enough information to address the conclusion that the adults eat more pizza and cookies than they would if no children were present.

(D)  Irrelevant . This argument starts with a premise about what parents   actually   do, and attempts to explain their behavior. Statements about what parents   ought   to be doing are not relevant to the argument.

(E)  Irrelevant . This argument is about how to explain the higher fat intake of the   average   parent living with children. The fact that   some   parents are not average is both unsurprising and irrelevant.

devikeerthansr · Answer

Eliminate everything except B and C.

B gives another reason for more fat consumption. It weakens the argument.
C says that children consume the most. Most means >50% . That is all. It does not weaken the argument.

B is right.

ankur909090 · Answer

while solving weakening question two things or process will be given and both will be connected , we need to show in option that things or process are not connected .

A -- A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. 
B - -The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children.

Analysis as it is a weakening question we need to find option that shows that B is not happening because of A .

(A) On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children. - not useful for our argument.
(B) Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children.- wait it gives different reason for B . so we can keep this option.
(C) Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household. - this option is a trap . it's possible that quantity of pizza in food is in excess so even though children consume it , left over quantity is still consumed by parents.
(D) Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters.- out of scope.
(E) Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.- out of scope.

PrajwalGupta · Answer

Please help solve this question

Bunuel · Answer

____________________________
Please read the discussion above.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

Conclusion: The higher fat intake among these parents is probably attributable to their snacking on the pizza and cookies that tend to be plentiful in households with children. 
 
(A) On average, households with children spend $15 more per week on pizza and cookies than do households without children.  -  this would voice support for the conclusion, not weaken it.

(B) Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which has a high fat content, than do households without children. - (B) cites a reason, other than pizzas and cookies, that explains why parents who live with children have higher fat intake. By providing a different reason for the "higher fat intake" observation made above, (B) takes away support for the conclusion. Hence, (B) weakens the conclusion. Therefore,    (B) is the right answer choice.  
   
(C) Children consume most of the pizza and cookies in any given household.  -  (C) still leaves room for doubt that adults can still consume sufficient amount of fat content and hence increase their fat intake.  
 
(D) Parents ought to set a good example for their children, in dietary choices as in other matters.  -  out of scope
  
(E) Not all parents living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.  -  irrelevant.

NeverEverGiveUp11 · Answer

VeritasKarishma  Can you clarify gaps in my understanding of reasoning for options B & C?
Option B talks about the purchase and not explicit about the consumption. We need to assume that what they (parents) purchase, they do consume as well. Whereas, C talks about "most of pizza and cookies are eaten by children" (that means there is something else reason for the higher fat intake).

MBAB123 · Answer

NeverEverGiveUp11 Choice C can be rejected because you still can't say whether the parents living with children eat more pizzas than the parents living along. What if the households with parents and children order 10 pizzas everyday and out of the 10, 8 are eaten by the children and 2 are eaten by the parents. It is possible that parents living alone do not eat any pizza at all. Note that the question stem does says that the reason for high fat intake is probably the abundance of pizzas. Whereas choice B directly attacks the reasoning of the stem by saying that there is another product with a high fat content that exists in the household with children. Of course consumption is an important factor, like you've correctly pointed out, if we were to evaluate the situation completely. But B directly weakens the reasoning/explanation by saying that there are other high fat foods in the households with children and parents so you can't just call pizzas and cookies out on the basis of abundance. This is not to say that pizzas and cookies are not the reason for the extra intake, they might be, but we are not bothered about that. We just need to weaken the explanation. Hope this helps!

KarishmaB · Answer

The conclusion attributes the higher fat consumption to pizza and cookies. 
Option (B) gives an alternative source of fat available in the household with children (just like pizzas and cookies are available in the household with children). Think of it this way:

A study says that parents living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children.

A: It could be because household with children have plenty of pizzas and cookies so parents might be snacking on them. 
B: Households with children have much more whole milk too so that could be the reason too.

It's valid, right? So answer is (B).

Instead, look at option (C). It says that most is eaten by children. Most means more than 50%. That leaves anything from less than 50% to almost 0% for parents. Then the extra fat consumption of parents could be coming from pizza etc. We don't have enough data to say whether this much amount available for parents is enough to add up to 5 extra gms of fat or not.

PriyamRathor · Answer

Below is the reframed question by Manhattan.

Hi  KarishmaB   AndrewN

My doubt: -
The question is asking to weaken the claim regarding the higher fat intake of adults living with children.

So, my first thought was to find  WHAT IS THE CLAIM

Here the claim is   adults living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children .
 
What is the support for the above claim?
   higher fat intake among these adults is likely attributable to purchasing more low-nutrition food, such as potato chips and cookies, for the children but succumbing to temptation themselves.

In order to weaken the claim, my pre-thinking was to find an answer which would tell us that  adults living with children doesn't consumer more fat as compared to adults living without children.

Hence , I went with Choice E.
Whereas the correct answer is B.

I would have agreed with choice B if the question had been the one mentioned below because we are being asked to weaken the explanation. Whereas in the REFRAMED QUESTION by Manhattan, we are being asked to weaken the claim. Hence I dont think CHOICE B is correct for the REFRAMED question.

Please guide.

KarishmaB · Answer

I do understand that the question stem of the official question is clearer and let's take heart from that but even with the modified question stem, I wouldn't doubt what is asked. 
A 'claim' is not a fact, not a premise. It is the author's opinion.

A 'claim regarding the higher fat intake of adults living with children' is 'the higher fat intake among these adults is likely attributable to purchasing more low-nutrition food, such as potato chips and cookies, for the children but succumbing to temptation themselves.'

'A recent study demonstrated that adults living with children consume more fat' is not a claim. It is an established finding. There is no claim here. 
What the author said to explain the finding is the claim. The claim in the argument is what the AUTHOR claimed.

Another question could give an argument giving the data of the study and saying that 'the researchers claim that parents fat intake is higher' - then this would be a claim.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A recent study demonstrated that parents living with children consume

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards