Last visit was: 20 Jun 2024, 02:53 It is currently 20 Jun 2024, 02:53
Toolkit
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2020
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 53 [2]
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64282 [3]
Given Kudos: 1808
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4404
Own Kudos [?]: 31113 [0]
Given Kudos: 641
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2014
Posts: 65
Own Kudos [?]: 53 [0]
Given Kudos: 164
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 590 Q44 V27
Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

The argument depends on which of the following?

Passage Analysis: The school would receive financial benefits because of soft drink vending machines. However, allowing soft drink vending machines would not benefit the students if the students drink more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

Pre-thinking: We are assuming that the students will be interested in drinking soft drinks from the vending machine placed in the cafeteria in the first place

A. If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.
Correct: This is in line with the pre-thinking. This statement closes a gap in the argument by stating that students would consume more soft drinks if the vending machines were placed in the cafeteria.

B. The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.
Incorrect: Irrelevant because we would not know the amount of soft drinks consumed after the introduction of the vending machines

C. Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.
Incorrect: Irrelevant because we are talking about whether the introduction of the vending machines in that school would make any difference to the consumption of soft drinks by students and thereby the health of students.

D. Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.
Incorrect: Consider the case in which students brought soft drinks from home even if the vending machines are placed in the cafeteria, we do not know about their consumption patterns from the vending machines.

E. The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.
Incorrect: We cannot assume that the school’s PRIMARY concern should be to promote good health and not anything else
Director
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 584
Own Kudos [?]: 418 [0]
Given Kudos: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
AndrewN

I have a query related to option B

Will the negated statement be
Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

OR
Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most SOME students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3511
Own Kudos [?]: 6942 [0]
Given Kudos: 500
warrior1991 wrote:
AndrewN

I have a query related to option B

Will the negated statement be
Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

OR
Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most SOME students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

Hello, warrior1991. For the most part, the negation of an answer choice involves adding or removing a not from a given statement. I would go with the top negation between the two you presented. Please note that the negation of most would have to be something like a minority, as some could just as easily constitute the majority. (To keep matters simple, think of three people. Saying that some preferred Drink A would be akin to saying that most of them did.)

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew
Director
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 584
Own Kudos [?]: 418 [0]
Given Kudos: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
AndrewN wrote:
warrior1991 wrote:
AndrewN

I have a query related to option B

Will the negated statement be
Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

OR
Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most SOME students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

Hello, warrior1991. For the most part, the negation of an answer choice involves adding or removing a not from a given statement. I would go with the top negation between the two you presented. Please note that the negation of most would have to be something like a minority, as some could just as easily constitute the majority. (To keep matters simple, think of three people. Saying that some preferred Drink A would be akin to saying that most of them did.)

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew

Thank you for clarifying. Coming back to the question now.

If we negate option B

Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

This means that currently the amount that most students are drinking is detrimental to their health. Adding soft drink vending machine will then definitely make them less healthy. So can we say that this option is somewhat strengthening the conclusion.
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3511
Own Kudos [?]: 6942 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
1
Kudos
warrior1991 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. Coming back to the question now.

If we negate option B

Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

This means that currently the amount that most students are drinking is detrimental to their health. Adding soft drink vending machine will then definitely make them less healthy. So can we say that this option is somewhat strengthening the conclusion.

Yes, this negated statement would strengthen an argument that said, if our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy. I suppose it could be the answer to another question altogether. (Choice (B) is not a necessary assumption to this actual question, if that is what you are driving at.)

- Andrew
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66057 [3]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
3
Kudos
notwithstanding wrote:
Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

The argument depends on which of the following?

(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.

ID - CR08831

Vending Machines

Step 1: Identify the Question

The question asks which of the answers the argument depends on so this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

\$ benefits soft drinks

© BUT No vm in caf

Bad for students à less healthy

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the correct answer is a piece of information that is necessary in order to draw the conclusion. This conclusion states that vending machines should not be allowed in the cafeteria because, if students drink more soft drinks, they’ll become less healthy. What information is needed to link the premises in this argument to the conclusion?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. In order for the vending machines to be harmful to the students’ health, they must result in the students drinking more soft drinks. If the vending machines did not result in additional consumption, the logic of the argument falls apart.

(B) The argument relies on the fact that the vending machines will result in increased soft drink consumption. How health is affected by current levels of soft-drink consumption does not provide information about whether more consumption could be harmful.

(C) The current amount of soft drinks consumed by students in unknown. The argument focuses on whether increased consumption would harm health. Whether no consumption is better than a small amount is not essential information to the argument.

(D) The argument does not attempt to prevent students from consuming soft drinks from any source; it argues merely that the school cafeteria should not provide the soft drinks. Discussing whether students might get soft drinks from home (or other places) does not impact the argument about having vending machines in the cafeteria.

(E) Promoting good health does not have to be the school’s primary concern for the conclusion to be valid. The plan could still make sense if the school was most concerned with educating students or some other goal.

School would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines
If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.
Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest.

Conclusion: We should not allow them.

The author concludes that we should not allow soft drink vending machines because it will not be in the students' interest because if students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

We need an assumption.

(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.

Since the author says that "more soft drink" will lead to "less healthy" and that vending machines are not in students' best interests, he is assuming that they will start drinking more soft drinks. So say, they will not simply replace drinking soft drinks at home with drinking the same amount in school instead.
By saying that we should not install soft drinks machines at school, he is assuming that students will start drinking more leading to lower health standards.

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

Irrelevant. The point is what happens if the machines are installed.

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.

Irrelevant. Again, what happens if all soft drinks are removed from their lives is not relevant to our argument.

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

The author is not assuming that the students will not bring soft drinks from home. We don't know what students do currently. Perhaps many of them do bring soft drinks from home. Perhaps more will start bringing in future. It doesn't matter. The point is the "no vending machines at school" vs "vending machines at school" scenario. The author assumes that there will be an increase in intake if soft drinks are available at vending machines in school.

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.

The author doesn't assume that it should be "primary" concern. He does assume that for the school, health of students should take priority over financial gain.

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Posts: 156
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [0]
Given Kudos: 154
notwithstanding wrote:
Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

The argument depends on which of the following?

(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.

What we know:
(i) School would get financial benefits if soft drink vending machines are kept in the cafeteria
(ii) Writer does not want to keep a soft drink vending machine in the cafeteria
(iii) If students drink more, they will get less healthy

What we don't know: relation between students drinking more soft drinks and keeping the vending machine in the cafeteria

Quote:
(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.

This exactly bridges the gap! Looks good to keep!

Quote:
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

Completely out of context! Maybe it still is. But the phrase 'less healthy' used in the question stem states that the writer refers to the impact of 'more soft drinks' on the students' health

Quote:
(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.

Out of context

Quote:
(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

Those who bring soft drinks from home could still drink from the cafeteria if the vending machine were kept there. So, this does not really change much

Quote:
(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.

It could be anything from promoting good health to preparing astronauts for the future. Why would that even matter! Even if primary concern were not promoting good health, it could still be, say 10th most important or even 100th most important concern. They could still take a decision that concerns health

Thus, (A) is the best option
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 1746 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
1
Bookmarks
GMATRockstar wrote:

I respectfully disagree with your reason for eliminating D. The correct answer choice for assumption questions will often appear to be outside of the scope, but is in fact necessary for the argument to hold. Especially an answer that states something 'won't' happen.

I'll drink too much alcohol tonight, therefore I'll be hungover tomorrow.
Depends on the assumption:
An asteroid won't hit planet earth tonight, ending all life on the planet.
This would be a correct answer choice despite having nothing to do with alcohol, hangovers, or me.

In fact, answer choice D isn't a terrible answer choice for this problem. It's wrong because even if students do bring their own soft drinks to the cafeteria, it's possible that a vending machine would still cause even more soft drinks to be consumed overall by the students - so negating answer choice D doesn't completely destroy the argument - there's still a possibility that the argument holds.

D would've been correct with the following tweak:
If the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria, students will not simply bring soft drinks from home and consume at least as many soft drinks as they would if the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2014
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 329 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Location: United Arab Emirates
From Manhattan:

Step 1: Identify the Question

The question asks which of the answers the argument depends on so this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

\$ benefits soft drinks

© BUT No vm in caf

Bad for students à less healthy

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the correct answer is a piece of information that is necessary in order to draw the conclusion. This conclusion states that vending machines should not be allowed in the cafeteria because, if students drink more soft drinks, they’ll become less healthy. What information is needed to link the premises in this argument to the conclusion?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. In order for the vending machines to be harmful to the students’ health, they must result in the students drinking more soft drinks. If the vending machines did not result in additional consumption, the logic of the argument falls apart.

(B) The argument relies on the fact that the vending machines will result in increased soft drink consumption. How health is affected by current levels of soft-drink consumption does not provide information about whether more consumption could be harmful.

(C) The current amount of soft drinks consumed by students in unknown. The argument focuses on whether increased consumption would harm health. Whether no consumption is better than a small amount is not essential information to the argument.

(D) The argument does not attempt to prevent students from consuming soft drinks from any source; it argues merely that the school cafeteria should not provide the soft drinks. Discussing whether students might get soft drinks from home (or other places) does not impact the argument about having vending machines in the cafeteria.

(E) Promoting good health does not have to be the school’s primary concern for the conclusion to be valid. The plan could still make sense if the school was most concerned with educating students or some other goal.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Hi Avi - you mention the following problem regarding (D)

if you negate (A) - i saw the same issue too

Quote:
(A original) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.
(A negated) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more equal or less soft drinks as a result.

Once you negate, if students drink equal soft drinks specifically -- isnt that a problem ?

Jd's note -- i think equal does weaken the argument.... If I drink equal amount of soft drinks (if the vending machine is present or if the machine is NOT present), this prooves that the vending machine doesnt result in 'MORE' soft drinks.

If the vending machine doesnt result in 'MORE' soft drinks, then the entire argument collapses because the 'if statement' is not true to begin with.
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2018
Posts: 161
Own Kudos [?]: 137 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
D is a classic GMAT trap answer choice.

This choice talks about the alternate plan that does not even address the issue raised in question stem.

I know, one can say that negation of option D would make sense to a certain extent but we need to understand the issue that is more closely related to argument. In the language of typical test-prep companies, we need to find the gap and hit there.

For this, try to imagine all the sequence of events and check if everything is mentioned in the stem of not.

So in this one.
Step 1 - Get a fridge with cold drinks
Step 2 - Students will get the resource (Money/foodcard/credits etc) to purchase the drink
Step 3 - Students will have that drink
Step 4 - The drink will have some effect on the students

Now, the officials/school authority are discounting step 2 and step 3, they are thinking if they'll put up the fridge in the cafe, the kid will definitely drink the unhealthy drink but for that to happen, you need to have both step 2 and 3.

Now, if you'll think about the option D, you'll realise that the choice D is not filling the gap we need to address.

Hope it helped.
Thank you.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Hi AndrewN -could you go over how you 'read' (D)

Given the double negatives coupled with the if-statement - i struggled to even read (D)

Could you assist perhaps on how you would go about understanding what (D) is saying
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3511
Own Kudos [?]: 6942 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
1
Kudos
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi AndrewN -could you go over how you 'read' (D)

Given the double negatives coupled with the if-statement - i struggled to even read (D)

Could you assist perhaps on how you would go about understanding what (D) is saying

Hello, jabhatta2. I know what you mean about assessing answer choice (D). But one way you can make the information more accessible is to think of the line in more familiar terms. For reference, the line:

Quote:
(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

It may help to identify the If X, then Y conditional statement that is currently backwards. What is X? Well, everything that follows if. But when we hold information in our working memory, we tend to use a sort of shorthand, so we might think of element X as

If the machines are not there [in the cafeteria]...

We do not need to fuss about the details, even though the word placed is crucial to the plan. What about Y, the logical result of X? Again, look to get rid of non-essential information in the way of modifiers to get to the heart of the matter:

students will not bring drinks...

To be honest, it does not matter whether students pack drinks from home, the convenience store, or anywhere else, as long as those drinks come from outside the cafeteria. So, our barebones version of (D) is the following:

If the machines are not there [in the cafeteria], students will not bring drinks [from somewhere else].

That should prove easier to follow than the original, and we have not altered any phrasing in a way that modifies the essential meaning, at least in the sense that our new conditional should prove just as useful to assessing the answer choice in an accurate manner as the original.

If the line still proves dense, you can always leave it alone and work with the other four options. That is, if answer choice (D) were covered in its entirety by a big black box, would you be able to disprove the other answer choices so that you felt sure of that unknown answer? If not, then what would it matter what was under the blocked text? (In fact, this can be a good way to hone your reasoning skills.)

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
AndrewN wrote:
If the machines are not there [in the cafeteria], students will not bring drinks [from somewhere else].
- Andrew

Thank you AndrewN..

Per my understanding of the theory at-least

If no X --> No Y
Then Y --> X

Thus, the above can be further re-phrased as :

Quote:
Students bringing drinks [from somewhere else]---> implies --> the machines are there [in the cafeteria]

Is this an accurate re-phrase you think | Would you take this additional step to re-phrase ?
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3511
Own Kudos [?]: 6942 [0]
Given Kudos: 500
jabhatta2 wrote:
AndrewN wrote:
If the machines are not there [in the cafeteria], students will not bring drinks [from somewhere else].
- Andrew

Thank you AndrewN..

Per my understanding of the theory at-least

If no X --> No Y
Then Y --> X

Thus, the above can be further re-phrased as :

Quote:
Students bringing drinks [from somewhere else]---> implies --> the machines are there [in the cafeteria]

Is this an accurate re-phrase you think | Would you take this additional step to re-phrase ?

Hello again, jabhatta2. No, I would not rephrase the conditional by removing the two instances of not, more or less canceling them out. You could be fundamentally changing the statement at that point and altering its logical implications. Consider the following:

1) If it does not snow, then John will not shovel.

Now, can I assert that if it does snow, John will definitely shovel? No. Perhaps John would simply not see the need—it might snow just an inch or two, and the weather forecast might call for a warmup later that day (which could melt the snow on its own). There could be any of a number of reasons that John would choose not to shovel even if it snows, so all we can do is take the conditional at face value: John will not shovel if it does not snow.

- Andrew
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
ChiranjeevSingh
AnishPassi

I struggled with (d) specifically.
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
GRE 1: Q166 V153
Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

The argument depends on which of the following?

(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.

Gist of the argument: We should not allow the vending machines in school. Why? If students drink more drinks, they will be less healthy. An obvious gap here is that putting the vending machine means "more" drinking of soft drinks by students will happen. If the students do not end up drinking "more" soft drinks than before vending machines, then why not allow the machines in the cafetaria? Lets look at the options:

A) This option is right along the obvious gap pointed above. By negating this option we can see that the conclusion will not hold. In simple words, if the students do not drink more soft drinks even after installing the vending machines, then we should be able to allow the machines as the health aspect is now solved. thus, this assumption is necessary for the conclusion to hold.

B) The amount of soft drinks students drink currently is not part of the issue here. How much "more" they can drink with the machines is the issue in discussion. Even if we negate this and say the current amount is detrimental to health, then the conclusion can still hold if not even stronger than before. We should definitely not allow machines if the current levels are already detrimental.

C) This option is presented as a statement of fact. However, this says the children are healthier if they have no drinks than some drinks. However, from the use of the word "more" soft drinks in the passage we know they are already having atleast some drinks. This statement is referring to elements not at issue in the argument passage.

D) Keep in mind that ensuring good health of students is not the argument. The argument is whether or not we should allow vending machines. This option says that the students could just bring soft drinks from home and drink more soft drinks if there are no vending machines. Whether or not external source of soft drinks appears, the point is that we should not allow vending machines. If we negate this option and say the students will bring soft drinks from home, then too the conclusion holds true that we should not allow vending machines in cafeteria. The conclusion should break if the assumption is negated for the assumption to be correct.

E) What The school's primary concern should or should not be, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Also, should implies an opinion and generally opinions are not assumptions so can be eliminated that way also.