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

Can someone through light on option C

Posted from my mobile device

Understanding the argument - 
­Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. - contrast and conclusion
Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. - supporting premise for the conclusion. Why we should not allow? Because it's not in our student's best interests. 
If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy. - How is it not in their best interest? Because if they drink more soft drinks, they'll be less healthy. Oh, I see.

Be careful - The last line is a sufficient condition. If our students start drinking more soft drinks, there is a 100% possibility that they will be less healthy.

But the next question one should ask is do they really drink more. Because we don't know. If they drink less? Then, the argument collapses. So we need an assumption, a missing premise, or a necessary condition to say that it's 100% confirmed that they'll drink more. 

Option Elimination - Assumption 

(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result. Yes. If they are placed in the cafeteria, they 100% drink more. Ok. Confirms the sufficiently conditional. 

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health. - more amount or less amount or whatever amount? We don't know. At best, it is a weakener. 

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally. - but how do we know that they don't drink at all if the machines are set up in the cafeteria? Ok, so maybe they'll drink small amounts? In that case, they'll be less healthy. 

Let's negate it. If they do not drink at all than....., students are not apt to be healthier. Meaning there is something else that contributes to their health. This is no impact or out of scope. 

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria. - Let's unpack it. 
It says if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria, students will not bring them from home. Mild strengthener. 

Or let's negate it. If the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria, students will bring them from home. But how much? We don't know. So, if they bring it, does it necessarily mean they consume it or fully? We don't know. So negation is a weak weakener. 

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students. - The school's concern is out of scope. 

Hi @KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option D is not correct?
Please provide explanations with both normal logic and negation techniques.

­Conc: If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy. (Remember it's a conditional in the conclusion)

(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result - Would the student's consume more soda because the vending machines are newly installed in the cafeteria? The logical implication being if they consume more soft drinks, they will be less healthy as a result. Negating the option - breaks the conclusion, i.e., consuming more soft drinks and thereby being less healthy. Keep 

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health. Do students drink detrimental amount of soda at school? Now this could factor in the decision to install vending machines in the cafeteria, but isn't a necessary assumption for the conclusion above. They could be drinking unhealthy amounts or not, however, drinking more can always lead to poorer health. Drop

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally. Sounds like a generic statement, but doesn't substantiate the conclusion, i.e., the students will drink more and be less healthy as a result. Drop

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria. Okay, assuming that the student's do bring soft drinks from home, how does this increase the consumption of soft-drinks by the students more than it is now? This leads to a further question - Are students allowed to bring soft drinks from home? This option leads to an ambiguous situation and doesn't answer the question. Drop

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students. What is the school's primary concern? Whether it's health or education or combination of the two, this doesn't answer the question - Will students be less healthy as a result of installing vending machines? Drop