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 Your Progress
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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Aug 2015, 11:28
10
1
80
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
65% (hard)
Question Stats:
58% (01:09) correct 42% (01:15) wrong based on 4060 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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.
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.
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Aug 2015, 22:45
24
15
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.
Type: Assumption Boil It Down: More soft drinks, less healthy -> Vending mach. Shouldn’t be allowed Missing Information: These vending machines would lead to net overall worsening of health Goal: Find the option the argument requires for the logic to hold
Ⓐ Yes! The argument ABSOLUTELY requires this option. How do we know that these students wouldn’t be consuming soda anyway? The argument depends on the notion that these soda machines would actually lead to a net increase in soda consumption.
Ⓑ Whether the typical soda intake at the skill is small, normal, or excessive doesn’t matter. The argument is that health will get WORSE regardless of the starting point. This option is not something the argument requires.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t hinge on the notion that students are likely to be healthier with no soda. We’d have to assume that C even applies to these students. For all we know, maybe not a single child at this school is soda free.
Ⓓ Even if students bring soda from home, the argument still holds because the convenience of the vending machines at school could still cause some students to consume more soda than they would have otherwise.
Ⓔ The argument doesn’t depend on what the school’s PRIMARY concern is. The argument could still stand if student health and soda consumption were a considerable concern.
_________________
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Oct 2015, 06:01
EMPOWERgmatMax 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.
Type: Assumption Boil It Down: More soft drinks, less healthy -> Vending mach. Shouldn’t be allowed Missing Information: These vending machines would lead to net overall worsening of health Goal: Find the option the argument requires for the logic to hold
Ⓐ Yes! The argument ABSOLUTELY requires this option. How do we know that these students wouldn’t be consuming soda anyway? The argument depends on the notion that these soda machines would actually lead to a net increase in soda consumption.
Ⓑ Whether the typical soda intake at the skill is small, normal, or excessive doesn’t matter. The argument is that health will get WORSE regardless of the starting point. This option is not something the argument requires.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t hinge on the notion that students are likely to be healthier with no soda. We’d have to assume that C even applies to these students. For all we know, maybe not a single child at this school is soda free.
Ⓓ Even if students bring soda from home, the argument still holds because the convenience of the vending machines at school could still cause some students to consume more soda than they would have otherwise.
Ⓔ The argument doesn’t depend on what the school’s PRIMARY concern is. The argument could still stand if student health and soda consumption were a considerable concern.
.
Hi,
I have doubt regarding option D. if student will bring soda from home then they are going to be unhealthy in that case also. or if option uses all students will bring soda from home then it would be correct choice. please clarify?
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Oct 2015, 19:56
1
PathFinder007 wrote:
Hi,
I have doubt regarding option D. if student will bring soda from home then they are going to be unhealthy in that case also. or if option uses all students will bring soda from home then it would be correct choice. please clarify?
Thanks
Hi PathFinder007,
We don't know that students aren't already doing this, the practice may or may not be already in place. So we can't say that they'll start if the vending machines aren't placed.
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
12 Mar 2016, 16:24
EMPOWERgmatMax 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.
Boil It Down: More soft drinks, less healthy -> Vending mach. Shouldn’t be allowed Missing Information: These vending machines would lead to net overall worsening of health Goal: Find the option the argument requires for the logic to hold
Ⓐ Yes! The argument ABSOLUTELY requires this option. How do we know that these students wouldn’t be consuming soda anyway? The argument depends on the notion that these soda machines would actually lead to a net increase in soda consumption.
Ⓑ Whether the typical soda intake at the skill is small, normal, or excessive doesn’t matter. The argument is that health will get WORSE regardless of the starting point. This option is not something the argument requires.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t hinge on the notion that students are likely to be healthier with no soda. We’d have to assume that C even applies to these students. For all we know, maybe not a single child at this school is soda free.
Ⓓ Even if students bring soda from home, the argument still holds because the convenience of the vending machines at school could still cause some students to consume more soda than they would have otherwise.
Ⓔ The argument doesn’t depend on what the school’s PRIMARY concern is. The argument could still stand if student health and soda consumption were a considerable concern.
Not convinced with your explanation as to why D is wrong. D should be defending the conclusion that Students wont bring soda from home and still be unhealthy right?
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
12 Mar 2016, 17:10
2
1
rachitshah wrote:
EMPOWERgmatMax 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?
Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: More soft drinks, less healthy -> Vending mach. Shouldn’t be allowed Missing Information: These vending machines would lead to net overall worsening of health Goal: Find the option the argument requires for the logic to hold
Ⓓ Even if students bring soda from home, the argument still holds because the convenience of the vending machines at school could still cause some students to consume more soda than they would have otherwise.
Not convinced with your explanation as to why D is wrong. D should be defending the conclusion that Students wont bring soda from home and still be unhealthy right?
Hi rachitshah,
I'd be happy to elaborate for you. There's a critical piece of the assignment that must be understood before we look further at D.
Bigger GMAT Picture: You mentioned D appears to be defending the Conclusion. We don't measure the utility of an assumption by whether it helps support an argument. Assumptions are gauged as to whether they are REQUIRED for the logic to hold. If an argument survives just fine without a piece of information, then that information is NOT assumed. On the other hand, if an argument collapses if the opposite of a possible assumption is taken, then that piece of information IS required. That's what an assumption is.
To put it another way for good measure: an assumption is a piece of information that without, the argument dies.
With that in mind, take a look at D and ask yourself "can the argument survive without it?"
Ⓓ Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.
You'll find that the answer is: yes, and therefore, the option is not required (not assumed).
Going into greater detail, let's say that students DO bring soda from home. The argument survives just fine because even if students bring soda from home, the vending machines at school could still cause some students to consume more soda than they would have otherwise, and still adversely impact student health.
_________________
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 May 2016, 04:32
2
We have already spoken a lot about why answer choice A is the correct answer choice. Now lets focus on why answer choice D is not the right answer choice.
Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.
The point of concern here is that whether vending machines in the cafeteria will urge students to drink more soft drinks. So all other other options such as bring cold drinks, having more soft drinks after school, or at home is out of scope. We are talking about whether vending machines in the cafeteria will urge students to have more soft drinks.
Let's also apply negation test:
Students will simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.
So what? This doesn't weaken the conc. This can very well be the case right now with some of the students. Main points is whether having vending machines will urge students to drink more.
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Jul 2016, 02:17
1
Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. CONCLUSION
Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. PREMISE
If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy. PREMISE
The correct assumption( unstated premise) will strengthen the existing argument by filling a gap
" If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result" logically connects deployment of soft drink vending machines to students drinking more soft drinks and hence is the right answer.
_________________
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Nov 2016, 15:09
1
Hi guys... Here is my analysis
Structure Conc: we should not allow SDV machines in cafeteria despite the $$$ benefit P1: +Soft drinks --> - healthy P2: Allowing SDV machines not in S's interests
Argument analysis 1st Falsify conclusion: In which scenario we should allow SDV machines in cafeteria given the fact that will bring $$$ benefit, but would be less healthier for students Scenario 1: If there is evidence suggesting that the presence of SDV won't encourage students to drink sodas. The assumption would be the negation of this scenario: The presence of SDV will encourage students to drink sodas.
Answer choice analysis 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. Correct! Aligned with pre-thinking
(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health. Irrelevant The argument is not concerned with the amount of soft drinks students consume. It is concern with SDV 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. Irrelevant The amount of soft drink students intake is not in discussion.
(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria. OFS This scenario (SDV machine are not placed in cafeteria) is not in discussion.
(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students. Irrelevant School's primary concern or goal is not in discussion.
Author's argument: students drink MORE Soft drinks --> LESS Healthy --> NO Soft drink vending machines in cafeteria
We have been asked to find an assumption for the author's argument.
Option A - correct answer. If the author has to make his argument, then installing vending machines should lead to higher consumption of soft drinks.
Option B - Incorrect. Whether the amount is detrimental or not is not relevant. All we are concerned about is whether the installation of vending machines leads to higher consumption of soft drinks and consequently makes students less healthy. Moreover, negating this answer option kind of strengthens the author's argument. Hence, incorrect.
Option C - Incorrect. this option is not relevant as we know already from the argument that installing vending machines leads them to drink MORE. this means that the amount they consumed earlier was not 0. That is the argument is making the comparison between consumption of some amount to more amount. this option compares 0 to a small amount. What is applicable here need not necessarily apply to the argument.
Option D - Incorrect. Even if they bring soft drinks from home, this option does not necessarily imply that they will drink more soft drinks than before. This means that they will still be MORE healthy than if the vending machines were installed. The argument still stands after negation. Hence, incorrect.
Option E - Incorrect. Nowhere is it stated that it is the "primary" objective. All we know is that it is an important goal. Whether it is the most important goal or not is unclear.
_________________
For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Jun 2017, 17:52
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?
(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.
Decision: Should not allow soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria,
Missing Information :If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.
Conclusion:If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.
_________________
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Aug 2017, 14:31
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. -If the students consume more drink then it will be a problem for the students. This basically bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion. (B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health. -We are not worried about the present condition of the students. (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 scope (D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria. -Out of scope (E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students. -Out of scope _________________
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Aug 2017, 04:38
startjumprun wrote:
Experts please help...even I thought that the correct ans is D...
The entire argument is based upon school's viewpoint about "discouraging" students from drinking "more" soft drinks. In other words, we need to look for an option that shows that there is a link between installing vending machines and consumption of soft drink.
Let us now look at both sides of D:
i) say vending machines are not installed. In that case, (as per D) students will simply bring soft drinks from home: So clearly, not installing vending machines has no effect.
ii) say vending machines are installed. In that case anyway, the students will use vending machines to buy soft drinks in school. Again, installing vending machines is not making them drink "more" soft drinks.
The point is that as per D, installing vending machines is just shifting the behavior from bringing soft drinks from home TO buying soft drinks in school. But this is not effecting the consumption of soft drinks.
_________________
Can experts please comment on using negation technique of D/A?
Quote:
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.
The author concludes that "allowing soft drink machines in the school cafeteria would not be in the students' interest. Why not? Because if the students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.
In order for the argument to hold, we need to assume that students will drink MORE soft drinks if the machines are added. In other words, the argument tells us that student health is negatively affected by an increase in soft drink consumption. But we don't know whether adding the machines will actually increase soft drink consumption.
This represents a gap in the logic. What if students will drink the same amount if the machines are installed? In that case, adding the machines would have no impact on the students' health, and the argument would fall apart.
Choice (A) eliminates this possibility and fills the gap. If we negate (A), then students might not drink more soft drinks when the machines are added. In that case, the argument is not valid.
As for choice (D), let's say that the students WILL bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria. At first glance, this might seem to impact the argument. If the machines aren't there, the students will simply bring soft drinks from home.
But choice (D) doesn't tell us anything about the QUANTITY of soda that is consumed in each case. For example, without the machines, a student might bring one soft drink bottle from home every day. WITH the machines, that student might purchase TWO soft drink bottles every day. Adding the machines increases that student's soft drink consumption even though choice (D) is not true. Negating (D) does not necessarily affect the argument, so (D) should be eliminated.
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2018, 09:02
Question Type: Assumption
Premise 1: Soft drink Vending machines should not be allowed in Cafeteria, even though they are generate extra revenue for the school.
Premise 2: Allowing Soft drink vending machines will not be good for the students.
Conclusion:The students will be less healthy, since they will drink more soft drinks.
Argument Analysis: We can write the whole argument in a concise form as " If Soft drink drink vending machines are installed, the students will drink drink more soft drinks & hence they will be less healthy" As we can see the assumption that will lead to the conclusion is the statement "If Soft drink drink vending machines are installed, the students will drink drink more soft drinks"
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Jul 2018, 02:39
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.
The argument is a chain of if-then statements; break it down and look for a missing proposition.
If student drinks soft drink, then student has bad health. [implied if-then proposition] Therefore, no vending machines in the cafeteria.
Focusing on the arguments conclusion, that is, no vending machines in the cafeteria, we should look for a proposition that contains an if-then related to the word "cafeteria".
(B) is outside scope. "the amount students currently drink" could reference anything outside of the cafeteria. Plus, "currently" does nothing in assessing an additional soft drink intake.
(C) is irrelevant. It is additional information that is not crucial to the argument, insofar as it does not relate to vending machines in the school cafeteria.
(D) is not crucial to the argument. It does not logically place into the if-then chain. If anything, it weakens the argument because it suggests that the students could, if they wanted to, still drink soft drinks regardless of a vending machine.
(E) This proposition is heavily implied; it definitely fits in the logical chain; however, the argument does not depend on it, because "school's primary concern" is not the main point of the argument. The arguer is focusing on the students self interest, not "school's primary concern".
(A) is the only choice that focuses on the correlation between the vending machine in the cafeteria, and the students consuming more soft drinks as a result of its location. Going back to the argument broken down:
If student drinks soft drink, then student has bad health. [implied if-then proposition] -- > If vending machine in the cafeteria, then student will drink more soft drinks. Therefore, no vending machines in the cafeteria.
Answer choice (A) is the only proposition that completes the argument.
gmatclubot
Re: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft dr &nbs
[#permalink]
25 Jul 2018, 02:39
close
58% (01:09) correct 
