Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The ca

Question

Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.

(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.

(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.

(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.

ravitejajasti · Accepted Answer

From Dan @MahattanPrep

Take this example:

I went to the store after Monday but before Friday.

How would you interpret this sentence? List out the possible days on which I went to the store. Take a second and think about it before reading on.

"After Monday but before Friday" means sometime between Monday and Friday. So the possible days on which I went to the store are Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The idiom "After X but before Y" serves to set up a time frame that is bounded on the front end by X and on the back end by Y.

If we make it negative:

I did NOT go to the store after Monday but before Friday.

...we interpret it the same way. I did NOT go on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.

In the case of the apples:

The apples were not washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

We have a bounded timeframe with harvest being the front end and reaching the cafeteria being the back end. The apples were not washed in that timeframe.

DmitryFarber · Answer

madhukaramar  Be careful--answer choice A is not a restatement of the premise. If it were, it would definitely not be the answer for an assumption question. The LSAT is a very carefully-written test!

The problem with the argument is that it's assuming that since the apples haven't been washed since arriving at the store, they have NEVER been cleansed of pesticides. Imagine that they were washed after picking, but then they sat in warehouses and trucks for a long time before reaching the cafeteria. Then they might be dirty, but still relatively free of pesticides. This is what A is addressing. The author is assuming that no washing happened BETWEEN the time the pesticide was applied and the time they arrived at the cafeteria.

KarishmaB · Answer

The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. 
The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. 
Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed.

Conclusion: Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.

Why does the patron conclude that the cafe is selling pesticide-covered fruit? Because the cafe does not wash the fruits. Not because the apples are greasy. He could have asked the cashier why they are greasy and found out that the cafe doesn't wash them. But he does not connect greasy with pesticides in any way. He only says that most fruits is sprayed with pesticides before harvesting and is dangerous if not washed. He doesn't say that pesticides make the fruit greasy. The grease could very well come from the packing material, we don't know.

So what is the patron assuming when he says that cafe is selling pesticide covered fruit? He is assuming that after harvesting, the fruit is not washed. Only then will it be dangerous. But it could have been washed after harvesting but before it reaches the cafe.

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

Correct as discussed above.

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.

The author doesn't assume this. He doesn't need to link greasy to pesticide for the conclusion to stand.

(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.

Irrelevant.

(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.

"dangerous until it is washed" implies that after washing, it does not have dangerous pesticide. Whether the grease remains or is washed off, we don't know.

(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.

Irrelevant

Answer (A)

pkm9995 · Answer

Conclusion is “Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons” .

The focus should be on the question why they have to wash it for not putting patrons under danger.

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.

–->So some pesticide may not leave greasy residue. Does it mean they need not wash it? B makes it sound like being greasy is the reason for washing.

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

-->Correct. Since they are not washed after harvest it is not a good to consume it without washing irrespective of the fact that it s greasy or not.

ApoorvaMittal · Answer

Hi

The conclusion is that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruits, thereby endangering its patrons.

Premise : Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed.

And the statements before that have been used to provide a background on the argument.

When you say that B is the correct answer, you do not take into account that even if there is no grease on the fruit, the fruit is still dangerous to be consumed as per the premise.
And the conclusion stands as it is.

Whereas in A, they clearly state that the fruit was not washed after harvest is why it should be washed now.

jurin · Answer

Keep in mind who is making the argument: a client

Premise: Cafeteria does not wash the apples
Premise: Apple are sprayed with dangerous pesticides and are dangerous until washed
Conclusion: Cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit

So the client must have assumed that since the apples are not washed after harvest (conclusion), hence dangerous for  DIRECT  consumption until washed (premise), and the cafeteria does not wash the apples, they are washed before it reached the cafeteria.

The cafeteria on the other hand is assuming the client will wash the apples before consumption reason why it's not washing the apples delivered.

A is the assumption made by the client

manhasnoname · Answer

Highlighted part is the clue. Fruit not washed => dangerous. From the stimulus we know that it is not washed in the cafeteria. We do not know if it is washed before it arrived to cafeteria. That's a big leap made by the patron. Hence (A) is the answer.

madhukaramar · Answer

souvik101990  - Could you help our here please.Below is my analysis.

Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria. 
-Although this is the best answer - I have a question. "The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy" is already stated as premise so this options actually tells the same story in 
 different way. So just a reword of a premise can be considered as an assumption ??

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit. 
 - This must not be true to hold the conclusion. Even if less than 50% of pesticides leave grease (negation) - the conclusion holds true.

(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. 
 - This is Out of Scope. Patron's are aware or not doesn't impact the conclusion that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons

(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off. 
 - Irrelevant

(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.
 - Irrelevant.

jayantbakshi · Answer

Understand from various explanations that A is the correct choice. 
"(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest  but before reaching the cafeteria ."
What do these words in red actually convey? The first part is very clear --> apples are not thoroughly washed, after harvest. 
This "but" statement is confusing - probably because I am a non-native English speaker. 
Please help, thanks.

US09 · Answer

Conclusion: The cafeteria is selling pesticide laden and thereby dangerous apples.

Note: The argument makes a leap from the fact that he cafeteria does not wash the apples to since apples are sprayed with pesticides, the cafeteria is selling them in that condition only. But what if in middle of the process from apples collection to delivery to the cafeteria, the apples are washed or sprayed with something to remove pesticides or undergo some process that to increase life while also removing pesticides? The argument assumes that none of such activities take place and thereby the cafeteria is selling the apples in same condition as they were when collected from the farm.

(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria. 
If the apples are washed before they reach the cafeteria, then the argument breaks down.  Correct.

(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.  Negation does nothing to the argument. If "most" pesticides do not leave a greasy residue, the point whether the pesticides are present on apples when they are sold at the cafeteria is not affected at all.
 
(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.  Irrelevant.

(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.  Irrelevant to the argument.

(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.  Irrelevant.

Kem12 · Answer

I feel the way option A is constructed doesn't make sense... I interpreted the option as yes, the apples were not washed after harvest But we're washed before reaching the cafeteria...i interpreted it as a contrast because of the word 'but' am I wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

DmitryFarber · Answer

"But" is just setting a limit on the time when this occurred. It's like saying "Over 18 but under 25": 18 < x < 25. In A we have picking - wash - store.

Naman_Agrawal · Answer

Hello  GMATNinja

Can you please help in eliminating option B

P.S: Maybe without using negation technique as it's too time-consuming and impractical to use in real test

Thanks in advance
Big Fan!

GMATNinja · Answer

Agreed that the negation test isn't the way to go! Here, we're looking for an assumption on which the argument depends . So, we need an answer choice that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold any water. Before diving into (B), first break down the structure of the argument: The patron concludes that "the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons." How does he/she reach that conclusion? First, the patron notices that the apples in the cafeteria are greasy (yikes). Then, he/she goes to talk to the cashier, who tells the patron that the apples came like that, and that "the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells." The patron notes that "most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed." So, because the cafeteria doesn't wash the apples, the patron concludes that the apples are covered in pesticides. Does (B) HAVE to be true in order for this argument to hold up? There is a serious issue with (B): notice that in the original argument the patron doesn't tie the greasiness of the apply directly to the pesticides. Sure, the greasiness is what caused the patron to complain in the first place -- but the "real" problem is that the cafeteria doesn't wash the fruit that it receives. Maybe these are just greasy apples in their natural state, and the greasiness has nothing to do with the pesticides. Or maybe the apples become greasy because of how they're positioned in the cafeteria, and again, the greasiness and the pesticides are two separate issues. The patron would STILL have a valid argument that the cafeteria is selling dangerous apples. The argument doesn't depends on the pesticides causing the greasiness, so (B) doesn't HAVE to be true in order for the argument to hold up. Eliminate (B). Compare that to (A): The patron's argument is "the cafeteria didn't wash the apples, so they must still be covered in pesticides!" But wait -- what if the apples get washed BEFORE they arrive at the cafeteria? That would completely wreck the argument. So, it MUST be true that the apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria. (A) is the correct answer... but I still wouldn't recommend eating the apples from this cafeteria.

I hope that helps!

Naman_Agrawal · Answer

That makes sense, thanks a lot

You are a rockstar ! .

sonalchhajed2019 · Answer

DmitryFarber   VeritasKarishma

I do not understand why B is not an assumption

The patron concludes that "the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons."

If we do not assume " (B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit." the argument breaks down. In a sense that the cafeteria may not be selling pesticide-covered fruit and hence not endangering lives.

GMATNinja · Answer

In case it helps, here's our take on choice (B): https://gmatclub.com/forum/cafeteria-pa ... l#p2810608.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The ca

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

Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The ca

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