Around the World in 80 Questions (Day 4): The consumption of ultra-pro

Question

The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001. Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries
B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices
C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects
D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018
E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

Target Test Prep Official Explanation:

The conclusion of the argument is that the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such (ultra-processed) foods.

The support for that conclusion in the passage is the following: The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001.

The correct answer will be helpful in determining whether the conclusion is actually correct.

(A) Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries

This choice is a trap. We might think that, if the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries, then the US government doesn’t have a good reason to warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

However, it remains the case that consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001. So, regardless of whether what this choice says is true, the US government still had good reason to warn the citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

(B) Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices

The answer to this question has no effect on the argument. After all, regardless of whether the main function of the government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices, it could still make sense for the government to warn people about the harms of consuming ultra-processed foods.

(C) Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects

Correct Answer

The answer to this question makes a big difference. After all, the point of warning people about the harms of consuming ultra-processed foods is to make them aware of those adverse effects.

So, if the answer to this question is no, and consumption of ultra-processed food is NOT lower among those aware of its adverse effects, then maybe there’s no point to the government warning people about the harms of such foods, and the case for the conclusion is weakened.

On the other hand, if the answer to this question is yes, then we have more reason to believe that the government should warn people, since doing so could cause people to reduce their consumption of ultra-processed food.

(D) Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018

This choice is a trap because we might get the sense that an increase in the total daily energy intake of an average US adult somehow makes a difference in the implications of the fact stated by the passage that the consumption of ultra-processed foods has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults.

However, the truth is that, regardless of whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult has increased, it still remains the case that the proportion of food that US adults consume that’s represented by ultra-processed foods has increased. So, it would still make sense for the government to warn the citizens about the harms of consuming such food.

(E) Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing

Regardless of whether the cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing, it could still help to warn people about the harms of consuming such foods. So, the answer to this question has no effect on the argument one way or the other.

Answer: C

Archit3110 · Answer

IC : consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 200
Conclusion : the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

use variance test on options : 
 A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countrie s
yes the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries ; does not strengthen conclusion 
B.  Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices 
yes ; he main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices ; question is about consumption of ultra-processed foods not lifestyle choices... 
 C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects

yes ,the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects ' this weakens the conclusion
no , the consumption of ultra-processed food is not lower among those aware of its adverse effects; this strengthens the conclusion

D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018 ;  not relevant to argument 
 E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing  ; same as d not relevant
 
 OPTION C is correct

Kinshook · Answer

Premise: The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001.

Conclusion : Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Asked: Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

The argument is NOT concerned with comparison of US with other countries. Irrelevant
Incorrect

The argument is NOT concerned with main function of the US government. The US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods if they are dangerous to their health.
Incorrect

If yes, then the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods 
But if no, then the US government should not warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods since warning or awareness does not make any difference.
Correct

The argument is NOT concerned with whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018 or not.
Incorrect

The argument is NOT concerned with whether ultra-processed foods are designed to look and taste appealing or not.

IMO C

Saburjon · Answer

The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001. Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries
B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices
C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects
D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018
E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing
_______________________________________________________
In attacking ''evaluate the conclusion '' questions , we can basically say ''Yes'' or ''No'' to the question in the answer choices. So, the conclusion of the argument is as follows: ''Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods'' and the priour sentence is argument's premise.
 
Let's take a look at answer choices. 
A - Answer choice compares an element of US adults to those in other countires. The point of the argument is not about this issue. A is out.
B - the point of the answer choice is about ''main function of the US government''. If we answer ''Yes'' , it may imply that the answer choice strengthens the answer choice, but if we answer ''No'' , it does not affect our argument. 
No, it is not main function of the US government and maybe it stand 2nd priority , let's say. Anyways, this answer choice is extreme and it is not correct. B is out.
C - answer choice addresses the heart of the argument. If we answer ''yes'', consumption of the food is lower among those aware of the adverse effects, it makes sense. It strengthens the argument.
If we answer ''no'', onsumption of the food is  NOT  lower among those aware of the adverse effects, it weakens the argument.
It looks good , hold on C.
D - point of the answer choice is about total daily intake. Moreover, it gives us a date ''2018'' , we dont know anything about the date from the argument. D is out.
E - Design of the food is not the main point of the argument. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.

C is our winner. 
Hope it helps.

IshanSaini · Answer

The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001. Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

Premises :
The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases.
BUT consumption of ultra-processed foods has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001

Conclusion :
the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries 
Irrelevant point the question is should the US government warn its citizens, comparison with other countries does not make much sense.
 
 B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices 
Irrelevant point again. Even if its not the "Main" function. it still wont effect the point the author is presenting that the government should do it.

C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects 
Seems good. If it shows that awareness about the harmful effects have made people reduce consumption then good the Govt. should do it. On the contrary if it shows that awareness does not make a difference the govt may not warn.

D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018 
Even if we know whether the intake has increased, decreased or even is same. it wont tell if the government should warn the citizens.

E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing. 
Same reason as above, it wont tell if any effect will be there if the government warns the citizens or not.

So IMO C.

DG1989 · Answer

The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001. Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries
B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices
C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects
D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018
E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing

Per given information:
1. Consumption of ultra-processed foods linked to various diseases
2. Consumption of ultra-processed foods steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001.

Conclusion:   The US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Let's do some pre-thinking here:
The conclusion is drawn on the basis of the observation that consumption of ultra-processed food has increased from 53% to 57% of the daily energy intake and since such foods are linked to various diseases, there is a need to warn citizens about harmful effects of such foods.

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries
 This choice is irrelevant. Here the focus of the statement is on the increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods among US adults and the potential harms associated with this trend, rather than on a comparison to other countries.  INCORRECT

B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices
 This is again an irrelevant choice. It is true that the US government has a role and responsibility of protecting public health and promoting public safety, the specific functions and responsibilities of the government can vary subjectively. Also warning citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices may not be the main function of the government but that does not necessarily mean that it should not take action to address public health concerns related to the consumption of ultra-processed foods.  INCORRECT

C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects
 This is a good choice. If by knowing this information, it can be shown that awareness does correlate with lower ultra-processed food consumption, then the raising awareness through government warnings could be an effective strategy. But if consumption remains high even among groups aware of potential harms, then simply providing warnings may not be an impactful policy action. There might be more efforts needed besides just issuing warnings to help reduce the consumption of ultra-processed food. Hence this is a strong choice.   Let's keep this

D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018
 This is a trap choice. The evidence provided in the argument is directly linked to the health problems associated with consumption of ultra-processed food irrespective of total daily energy or calorie intake. Even if the daily energy intake increased or decreased while consumption of ultra processed food increased, that doesn't change the fact that it still poses a concern to the public health and hence warnings should be issued regardless.  INCORRECT

E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing
 This answer choice doesn't impact the conclusion substantially. There are likely other contributing factors beyond just taste and appearance that would force the government to look at other policies and interventions besides just warning to implement in order to spread awareness among people about the harmful effects of these foods. While the appeal of ultra-processed foods' taste, appearance, etc. is likely an important reason for their popularity, the key determinants for evaluating the appropriateness of government warnings should be the health evidence, potential impact, feasibility etc.  INCORRECT

Option  C  is the correct choice

TargetKellogg2024 · Answer

The consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to various diseases yet has steadily increased from 53 percent to 57 percent of the daily energy intake of US adults since 2001. Clearly, the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.
 
Which of the following would be most helpful in evaluating the above conclusion?

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries
 This option is about the percentage of ultra-processed foods in other countries. This information is not relevant to the US government's decision to warn its citizens. The US government should warn its citizens about the harms of ultra-processed foods regardless of whether other countries are doing the same.

B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices
 This option is about the main function of the US government. This information is also not relevant to the specific issue of ultra-processed foods. The US government has many functions, and whether or not one of its functions is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices is not relevant to the question of whether or not the government should warn citizens about the harms of ultra-processed foods.

C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects
 The conclusion of the argument is that the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming ultra-processed foods. Therefore, it would be helpful to know whether this warning would actually be effective. If the consumption of ultra-processed food is already lower among those aware of its adverse effects, then the warning may not be necessary.

D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018
 This option is about the total daily energy intake of US adults. This information is not directly related to the consumption of ultra-processed foods. The consumption of ultra-processed foods is only one factor that contributes to total daily energy intake. There are many other factors, such as the consumption of unprocessed foods, that also contribute to total daily energy intake.

E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing
 This option is about the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods. This information is interesting, but it is not as helpful as knowing whether the warning would be effective. The government may still want to warn citizens about the harms of ultra-processed foods even if they are not the main cause of the increase in consumption.

charlie07 · Answer

The main conclusion of the argument is that the US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming processed food. The reasoning used is that consumption of processed foods seems to cause health issues and that the percentage of processed foods in daily intake is increasing.
To identify which option would be most helpful in evaluating the conclusion, we need to answer each of them with yes or no and see if the conclusion strengthens or weakens.

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries
This is irrelevant as the argument is limited to US

B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices
If it is a yes, conclusion strengthens.
If it a no, conclusion does not weaken because it might not be the US government's main function but it could be one of its many functions.
So, B is eliminated.

C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects
If yes, the conclusion is strengthened.
If no, the conclusion is weakened because awareness of the harms of processed food is not lowering the consumption. It could mean it is just the same and not increasing either, but there is no incentive in warning.
C seems to be a good option.

D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018
If yes, this just tells that not only the percentage of processed food in daily intake is increased, but also its quantity. It is not adding any additional evidence. Thus, conclusion is not affected.
If no, since the the percentage of processed food in daily intake is increased, and the energy intake remained same or decreased, the quantity of processed food could have increased or decreased. However, increase in the proportion of processed food in daily intake in itself is enough evidence and this statement does not add any solid evidence to conclusion.
Hence, D is eliminated.

E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing

The 'yes' or 'no' to this question is irrelevant to this argument as we are not looking into causes of increased processed food consumption.

So, C is the correct choice.

BottomJee · Answer

Premise:-  
a. Consumption of ultra-processed foods --> various diseases.
b. Still consumption has increased.

Proposed Plan:-  US government should warn citizens about the harms of consuming such foods.

Logical jump:- 
a. US citizens are currently not aware of linkage between consumption of such foods and various diseases.
b. Creating awareness among US citizens will actually lead to lesser consumption.
c. US citizens will believe to what US government has to say.
d. ... there could be plentiful of other strengtheners for this argument.

Scope issue.  Our concern is only the consumption of such foods among US adults and what preventive actions US government can take.

It doesn't matter what is the main function of the US government. Whether creating awareness causes any change in actual consumption of such foods among US citizens is yet to be seen.

VARIANCE TEST  
If Yes- That means awareness among citizens has made an impact in their consumption of such foods. Hence, this strengthens the plan proposed by the author.
If No- That means awareness among citizens has not made an impact in their consumption of such food. Hence, the plan proposed by the author will not make any difference.

Plan proposed is "create awareness among US citizens", and even if the total daily energy intake has increased, it doesn't inform us whether plan proposed will work or not.

Scope Issue.  Argument is not concerned whether such foods look and taste appealing to US citizens. It is only bothered about the proposed plan.

IMO OA should be C

Catman · Answer

Conclusion: The US govt should warn citizens about the harms of consuming ultra processed foods, because there consumption is linked to various diseases.

A. Whether the percentage of the daily energy intake represented by ultra-processed foods is currently much lower for US adults than for adults in other countries  ~ Incorrect, the percentage of daily energy intake does not represent the harmfull effects by consuming these ultra processed foods.
 
B. Whether the main function of the US government is to warn citizens about the harms of lifestyle choices  ~ Incorrect, this is too general, conclusion is about related to the harmfull effects of consumption of processed foods.

C. Whether the consumption of ultra-processed food is lower among those aware of its adverse effects  ~ Correct, if the consumption is lower among the aware people, than the warning given by the US Govt is successfull, if not than it is futile to give such warning.

D. Whether the total daily energy intake of an average US adult increased from 2001 to 2018  ~ Incorrect, the total daily energy not gives the answer how the US Govt warning will impact the citizens.

E. Whether the main cause of the increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods is that they are designed to look and taste appealing  ~ Incorrect, there design and taste appealing will not impact whether they are harmful or not.

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.

Around the World in 80 Questions (Day 4): The consumption of ultra-pro

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

Around the World in 80 Questions (Day 4): The consumption of ultra-pro

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