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

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.


EMPOWERgmat Enhanced Explanation:

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 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.
_________________

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.

(A) is the best answer.
_________________

.

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.

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?

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.

Hope it helps.

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.

This question is based on principles of conditional reasoning and formal logic:

Questions stem:
Vending machines -> Financial benefits
Students drink more SD -> Students become Less healthy

In assumption questions, the answer choice gives the missing link in reasoning, thereby filling the gap:

A. Vending machines -> students drink more SD

So, this answer choice gives us the missing link in reasoning:

Vending machines -> students drink more SD -> Students become Less healthy
_________________

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.

read the answer options carefully to see what exactly the argument is saying -

Counter Argument:
Soft drink vending machines in cafeteria --> financial benefits.

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.

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.
_________________

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

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.
_________________

Hi GMATNinja generis GMATNinjaTwo

Can experts please comment on using negation technique of D/A?
_________________

Can some expert apply the negation technique in option C?
I have not been able to eliminate option C on solid grounds.

Hey nitesh50 -- Great question!

The language in (C) makes it difficult to negate by just changing a couple words around, so sometimes it can help to translate what you know into plainer English in your head before you negate it.

If you do that here, (C) becomes something along the lines of "Students who don't drink soft drinks are likely to be healthier than students who drink soft drinks occasionally." That's a lot easier to negate. If you do, it becomes "Students who don't drink soft drinks ARE NOT likely to be healthier than students who drink them occasionally."

If that's true, then you can combine that with a key piece of missing information: you don't know how many soft drinks students currently drink. If all the students don't drink soft drinks, then yes, the argument would fall apart. But if students drink soft drinks on a regular basis, then you don't know the consequences since you don't know the difference between the effects of drinking soft drinks on a regular basis and drinking more soft drinks on a regular basis.

I want to compare between the Options C and A.

It is already stated that "school would receive financial benefits", which means that this is already that more of the drinks will be bought from vending machines and thus the assumption stated in A is already kinda given statement but what is not given is whether "drinking soft drinks is unhealthy".

Can someone help me explain more on it?