Bevex, an artificial sweetener used only in soft drinks, is carcinogen

Conclusion :
Bevex is in fact safe for people

Premise :
unless a person drinks more than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day.

What must be true to ensure Bevex is safe :
People drink fewer than 25 cans/day.

So Option C is the correct one.

Bevex, an artificial sweetener used only in soft drinks, is carcinogenic for mice, but only when it is consumed in very large quantities. To ingest an amount of Bevex equivalent to the amount fed to the mice in the relevant studies, a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. For that reason, Bevex is in fact safe for people.

For which of the following assumptions does the argument that Bevex is safe for people depend?

(A)

Cancer from carcinogenic substances develops more slowly in mice than it does in people.

(B)

If all food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, some would be found to be carcinogenic for mice.

(C)

People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day.

(D)

People can obtain important health benefits by controlling their weight through the use of artificially sweetened soft drinks.

(E)

Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people.




--------------
Hi,

I have narrowed down answer choices to (C), (D) and (E) on this question.

(C) seems too simplistic an answer, but it is logical. (D) seems a plausible assumption. (E) seems out of scope somewhat, but yet, I didn't want to eliminate it as an answer choice.

What would be the next step?

Thanks.

Isn't it that option C gives the missing link?
What if we negate option C, It will be that people do not drink fewer than 25 soda per day. If that be so, the negated option C directly attacks the conclusion.

C, as well.

C - properly fills in the gap between the first premise and the conclusion. Stating this ensures that the conclusion is true. It eliminates any doubts (other possibilities such as drinking more than 25 cans a day). Using neagtion breaks the conclusion:
Premise 1: Bevex causes cancer in people when drinking 25 cans of it a day.
Premise 2 NEGATED: People drink AT LEAST 25 cans of Bevex a day.
Conclusion: Bevex is safe. [broken conclusion]
------------------------------------------------------
D - is out of scope. The stimulus is not concerned about the health benefits per se. It only seeks to stablish a relationship between mice and people (as in apples to apples so that a proper comparison can be made)

E - This is out of scope. Stiumus talks about Bevex being carcinogenic and answer talks about other studies.

Answer C

This is the way that I look at the problem.
Bevex causes cancer for humans only if they drink over 25 cans per day. Thus it is safe for people. Why is it safe for humans? Because humans wont drink 25 cans in a day.

People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day.

C is the best answer but it seems to be little out of scope coz it talks of Soda and not Soft drinks, now experts will say its more of a common sense.

"a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day"

Are they not two different things

Hey lets go step by step
Premise 1: Carcinogenic for mice when taken in large doze.
Premise 2: Men are safe if they limit themselves to 25 cans

Conclusion: Bevex is safe for Men

Gap in the argument or unstated part: Men will not or never drink 25 cans Of Soft drink

Lets move to option d: People can obtain important health benefits by controlling their weight through the use of artificially sweetened soft drinks.
The argument doesnt states anywhere of health benifit....its totally out of scope
Topics within the scope are: Cancer, Soft drink 25 can safe or not , Mouse and Men

Lets move top option E :Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people
This is more of Weakener for the argument and not the assumption.

Conclusion: Bevex is in fact safe for people.
To conclude that Bevex is safe for human consumption we have to assume that a person doesn’t consume more 25 cans or more than 25 cans of Bevex. This information is something that the authir has taken for granted. If we try the opposite of the answer “he does consume more than 25 cans” the argument falls apart. Hence, the correct answer is B.

Hi Expert,

How come "A" is not the weakener?

In my reckoning, nowhere in the argument it is mentioned that the rate at which Bevex becomes carcinogenic for Humans is similar to mice.

However, it does give an info stating that to only after having more than 25 cans a day it becomes carcinogenic for humans.

But the rate at which it becomes carcinogenic for humans is no where mentioned.

What if, humans have a better immune system than mice and can ward off more than 30 cans equivalent of Bevex.

Am I on the right track thinking this?

Thanks for your reply.

The argument concludes that Bevex is safe for people. Here's how the author gets there:

• Bevex is carcinogenic for mice when consumed in very large quantities.
• The very large quantity of Bevex observed to be carcinogenic for mice is equivalent to 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened drinks per day for a person.
• Therefore, Bevex is safe for people.

(C) is the best answer choice because it confirms that people drink fewer Bevex-sweetened drinks than the quantity observed to be carcinogenic (25 cans per day). This connects the logical dots leading to the conclusion. Now, let's take a closer look at why we eliminate choice (A).


A carcinogenic substance is not the same thing as cancer. Carcinogenic substances have the potential to cause cancer, which can then develop at a slow or rapid rate within the afflicted body. The argument states that Bevex is safe for people, specifically because Bevex is not carcinogenic when consumed below a certain quantity per day (25 cans per day). This argument is about a substance that may cause cancer, but it is not about the cancer itself.

(A) tells us that once cancer has begun to develop as a result of carcinogenic substances, it does so more slowly in mice than it does in people. But a substance that causes cancer can be considered carcinogenic regardless of whether the resulting cancer develops slowly or quickly.

(A) does not tell us how people are impacted by Bevex in particular. Also, it tells us nothing about how people consume Bevex (i.e. quantity consumed per day). As a result, this choice does nothing to connect the dots of the argument.

We eliminate the choice because it really doesn't address the specific argument being made.

I hope this helps!

Bevex, an artificial sweetener used only in soft drinks, is carcinogenic for mice, but only when it is consumed in very large quantities. To ingest an amount of Bevex equivalent to the amount fed to the mice in the relevant studies, a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. For that reason, Bevex is in fact safe for people.

In order for the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people to be properly drawn, which of the following must be true?

Analysis:
Conclusion: Bevex is safe for people
premise: more than or equal to 25 cans/day of Bevex is harmful
So how to strengthen? if people drink fewer than 25 cans/day of Bevex, then people are safe.

(A) Cancer from carcinogenic substances develops more slowly in mice than it does in people. --> can't strengthen the conclusion
(B) If all food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, some would be found to be carcinogenic for mice. --> can't strengthen the conclusion
(C) People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day. --> correct: matches w/ analysis
(D) People can obtain important health benefits by controlling their weight through the use of artificially sweetened soft drinks. --> irrelevant
(E) Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people. --> irrelevant

The right answer here is C. Sometimes, the answer to the question may almost seem absurd. In the real world, who would drink 25 cans of anything per day? But the GMAT sets up questions specifically to exploit the difference between how we might reason on a day to day basis vs what is formal correct reasoning. So unless the argument TELLS you that people don't drink 25 cans of soda, you cannot assume it to start with.

- Matoo

Bevex, an artificial sweetener used only in soft drinks, is carcinogenic for mice, but only when it is consumed in very large quantities. To ingest an amount of Bevex equivalent to the amount fed to the mice in the relevant studies, a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. For that reason, Bevex is in fact safe for people.

In order for the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people to be properly drawn, which of the following must be true?


(A) Cancer from carcinogenic substances develops more slowly in mice than it does in people.

(B) If all food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, some would be found to be carcinogenic for mice.

(C) People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day.

(D) People can obtain important health benefits by controlling their weight through the use of artificially sweetened soft drinks.

(E) Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people.

I got the answer but can you plz tell me how can we negate option B we should write option b as ''If NO food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, some would be found to be carcinogenic for mice.'' OR ''If all food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, NONE would be found to be carcinogenic for mice.''
and how they do not break the conclusion
THANK YOU

Hello, honey1. I will start by saying that I do not typically employ a negation strategy because of the very consideration you bring up here. (Many people use negation on assumption questions only.) I prefer to engage directly with the answer choices, as written, rather than alter anything and hope I have done so in line with the question. However, in the interest of answering your questions, I would negate choice (B) in the second manner you have outlined. Think about that first one for a minute: how could NO food additives be tested but yield results that showed that some of those non-additives were carcinogenic for mice? That would be some experiment, the laboratory equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes, I guess. (You can look up that reference if you are unfamiliar with that children's tale.) Even with the proper negation, though, we are left with an overreaching all food additives. The passage does not concern itself with all food additives, but with Bevex only, and the conclusion is that Bevex is safe for people. Choice (B), in other words, would still be an irrelevant consideration.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Bevex, an artificial sweetener used only in soft drinks, is carcinogenic for mice, but only when it is consumed in very large quantities. To ingest an amount of Bevex equivalent to the amount fed to the mice in the relevant studies, a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. For that reason, Bevex is in fact safe for people

Conclusion bevex is in fact safe for people
Line of reasoning - a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day

The only option that must be true for the conclusion to remain intact is C