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:
Quant Quizzes are back with a Bang and with lots of Prizes. The first Quiz will be on 8th Dec, 6PM PST (7:30AM IST). The Quiz will be Live for 12 hrs. Solution can be posted anytime between 6PM-6AM PST. Please click the link for all of the details.
Join IIMU Director to gain an understanding of DEM program, its curriculum & about the career prospects through a Q&A chat session. Dec 11th at 8 PM IST and 6:30 PST
Enter The Economist GMAT Tutor’s Brightest Minds competition – it’s completely free! All you have to do is take our online GMAT simulation test and put your mind to the test. Are you ready? This competition closes on December 13th.
Attend a Veritas Prep GMAT Class for Free. With free trial classes you can work with a 99th percentile expert free of charge. Learn valuable strategies and find your new favorite instructor; click for a list of upcoming dates and teachers.
Does GMAT RC seem like an uphill battle? e-GMAT is conducting a free webinar to help you learn reading strategies that can enable you to solve 700+ level RC questions with at least 90% accuracy in less than 10 days.
Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jan 2013, 22:04
1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
15% (low)
Question Stats:
78% (01:22) correct 22% (01:37) wrong based on 432 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released a line of zero-calorie energy drinks for athletes who seek flavor and hydration without sugar. But Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie drinks contain a number of chemicals known to have a deleterious effect on the body, so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line. B. Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals. C. Regular Cheetah Sweet is at least as tasty as Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line. D. Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question. E. Cheetah Sweet has no plans to discontinue its regular line.
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jan 2013, 23:25
2
1
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released a line of zero calorie energy drinks for athletes who seek flavor and hydration without sugar. But Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie drinks contain a number of chemicals known to have a deleterious effect on the body, so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line. Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals. Regular Cheetah Sweet is at least as tasty as Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line. Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question. Cheetah Sweet has no plans to discontinue its regular line. Source: Veritas Prep
", so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead" : this clause from the premise holds true only if sugar is better than chemicals. Option D eliminates the possibility. Hence D, it is.
The argument says that consuming regular Cheetah Sweet will be more beneficial for the body. This makes an assumption that the sugar in regular Cheetah Sweet is less harmful for the body than the chemicals in the new drink. (D) most clearly expresses this and is therefore the best option.
_________________
GyanOne [www.gyanone.com]| Premium MBA and MiM Admissions Consulting
Awesome Work | Honest Advise | Outstanding Results
Reach Out, Lets chat! Email: info at gyanone dot com | +91 98998 31738 | Skype: gyanone.services
The argument says that consuming regular Cheetah Sweet will be more beneficial for the body. This makes an assumption that the sugar in regular Cheetah Sweet is less harmful for the body than the chemicals in the new drink. (D) most clearly expresses this and is therefore the best option.
A): Even if the chemicals affect everyone who has the new drink, this is still not enough evidence for why people should have the sugar version instead. The sugar version is better only if the harmful effects of sugar are less than the harmful effects of the chemicals. This option does not compare the two, and is therefore insufficient.
_________________
GyanOne [www.gyanone.com]| Premium MBA and MiM Admissions Consulting
Awesome Work | Honest Advise | Outstanding Results
Reach Out, Lets chat! Email: info at gyanone dot com | +91 98998 31738 | Skype: gyanone.services
The argument says that consuming regular Cheetah Sweet will be more beneficial for the body. This makes an assumption that the sugar in regular Cheetah Sweet is less harmful for the body than the chemicals in the new drink. (D) most clearly expresses this and is therefore the best option.
Hi GyanOne
What is wrong with option A?
Hi
i ll be glad if my post helps you, Any person other athlete is out of scope. The argument is concerned just about athletes specifically. also consider the assumption of the argument: The regular drink will not have deleterious affect on athletes. Read the assumption in conjunction with option D,
In simpler terms...read the argument as A causes B , so Use C.....think about the assumption Consider kudos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A) The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line. we donot know this from the stem
Moreovere, the conclusion (for which the assumption must be true) talk about : But Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie drinks contain a number of chemicals known to have a deleterious effect on the body, so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead.
CORRECT ANSWER CHOICES: Will be supporter or defender Supporters help to link unrelated information presented in the stimulus and fill logical gaps Defenders eliminate possibilities of weakness and attack to the stimulus/conclusion.
In this specific case, the answer is clearly a Defender
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Apr 2019, 03:26
TGC wrote:
Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released a line of zero calorie energy drinks for athletes who seek flavor and hydration without sugar. But Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie drinks contain a number of chemicals known to have a deleterious effect on the body, so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line. Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals. Regular Cheetah Sweet is at least as tasty as Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line. Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question. Cheetah Sweet has no plans to discontinue its regular line. Source: Veritas Prep
Negate D: Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question.=> If the athletes served by regular Cheetah Sweet, their body would be heavily affected because the sugar in these regular drink has deleterious effect on the body => Break the conclusion Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question. => It means if the athletes served by regular Cheetah Sweet, their body would be less affected than using Cheetah Sweet zero => Conclusion is fine. Thus D
_________________
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Jun 2019, 21:54
Why not option A? If we use the negation technique, the sentence becomes - The chemicals does not affect anyone who drinks Cheetah???s Sweet???s zero calorie line.
Now this harms the conclusion as well which says," Since chemicals are known to deleterious effect on the body, athletes would be better served by consuming regular cheetah Sweet instead.
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jun 2019, 16:11
harshey77 wrote:
Why not option A? If we use the negation technique, the sentence becomes - The chemicals does not affect anyone who drinks Cheetah???s Sweet???s zero calorie line.
Now this harms the conclusion as well which says," Since chemicals are known to deleterious effect on the body, athletes would be better served by consuming regular cheetah Sweet instead.
Need to know how to eliminate A here.
I too have the same query! Need to know how to tackle these type of questions.
_________________
Make YOUR Life a Masterpiece!! Remember that Winter ALWAYS turns to Spring...
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 182
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Jul 2019, 13:10
harshey77 wrote:
Why not option A? If we use the negation technique, the sentence becomes - The chemicals does not affect anyone who drinks Cheetah???s Sweet???s zero calorie line.
Now this harms the conclusion as well which says," Since chemicals are known to deleterious effect on the body, athletes would be better served by consuming regular cheetah Sweet instead.
Need to know how to eliminate A here.
harshey77 and eka9045, You have done the polar negation rather than logical negation. Ex:
What's the negation of cold? ------> It's certainly not Hot: polar negation The negation of cold = NOT cold: logical negation
Similarly, let's negate OptionA:
A: The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line.
Meaning = The chemicals affect ALL who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line.
!A: The chemicals affect NOT anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line.
Meaning = The chemicals affect NOT ALL who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line.
If the chemical affects NOT all,
the effect may be detrimental if the athletes come under the purview of affected people: Weaken the conclusion the effect may NOT be detrimental if the athletes do NOT come under the purview of affected people: Strengthen the conclusion
The effect on negation is dicey at best.
TakeAway:
Any answer choice, which can sway in either direction, is NEVER going to be the correct assumption. For an option to be the correct assumption, the negation of that answer choice MUST break the conclusion.
To sharpen your arsenal, you can refer to this link.
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Aug 2019, 18:21
Why cant Option B be right? If option B is assumed, it shows that the chemicals cannot be removed from the drink and hence the normal drink is needed. If the chemicals could be removed then there was no need of switching back to the normal drink
Option D says that sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than chemicals. More deleterious effect means it still has an effect so either way the athletes should stop consuming the drink
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 182
Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Aug 2019, 06:43
devavrat wrote:
Why cant Option B be right? If option B is assumed, it shows that the chemicals cannot be removed from the drink and hence the normal drink is needed. If the chemicals could be removed then there was no need of switching back to the normal drink
Option D says that sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than chemicals. More deleterious effect means it still has an effect so either way the athletes should stop consuming the drink
Can someone pls explain
Posted from my mobile device
The conclusion: The athletes would be BETTER off consuming REGULAR Cheetah Swift.
Why? Because Cheetah Swift zero contains chemicals known to cause a harmful effect on the body.
However, by providing information about ONLY one, we CANNOT say that it is better to switch. We would NEED to know that regular Cheetah Swift has fewer chemicals or substances known to cause a harmful effect on the body.
Speaking of OptionB,
B. Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals. !B = Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line CAN be altered to remove the chemicals.
Is it necessary that the alteration would remove the deleterious effect on the body? What if the alteration ------lead to----> some OTHER deleterious effects, making Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie drink completelyUNFIT for consumption.
Does the alteration of Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie drink necessarily make it BETTER than REGULAR Cheetah Swift? Let's quantify the problem: It would assist in understanding.
The deleterious effects of REGULAR Cheetah Swift drink = 20-points. With a number of chemicals, the deleterious effects of Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie drink = 100-points. After alteration, i.e., WITHOUT a number of chemicals, the deleterious effects of Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie drink = 50-points.
After alteration, the deleterious effects of Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie drink CAN also be less than 20-points. However, we CANNOT guarantee. The effect on negation is dicey at best.
Thus, the deleterious effects of zero-calorie drink can STILL easily be higher than those of REGULAR Cheetah Swift.
To answer your query
Quote:
Option D says that sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than chemicals. More deleterious effect means it still has an effect so either way the athletes should stop consuming the drink
The conclusion is NOT based on absolutely ZERO deleterious effect. Even if it does harm, REGULAR Cheetah Swift is still better than a zero-calorie drink. Let's have an analogy,
The mileage of Honda-cars is not apt for long highways. Therefore, drivers must use BMW-cars. What's the reasoning -
Why is the author recommending BMW-cars after knowing that Honda-Cars are not apt for long highways? ----> There must be an UPPER hand of BMW, making BMW preferred to Honda.
Is it mandatory that the mileage of BMW cars need to be gazillion miles/ Unit-of-fuel?
----> No. If the mileage of BMW cars is sufficient enough to survive the long highways, we are good to go!
Just as we do NOT need mileage of BMW cars to need to be gazillion miles/ Unit-of-fuel, so we do NOT need to have ZERO deleterious effects.
TakeAway:
If the author is calling X better than Y and even recommending X, then on a measurement-scale, X MUST score better rank/marks than Y. The negation of the correct assumption choice MUST break the conclusion. Do NOT settle for a mere correct answer. Go beyond and OWN the question!
Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Aug 2019, 07:47
eka9045 wrote:
harshey77 wrote:
Why not option A? If we use the negation technique, the sentence becomes - The chemicals does not affect anyone who drinks Cheetah???s Sweet???s zero calorie line.
Now this harms the conclusion as well which says," Since chemicals are known to deleterious effect on the body, athletes would be better served by consuming regular cheetah Sweet instead.
Need to know how to eliminate A here.
I too have the same query! Need to know how to tackle these type of questions.
Analogy: Candy A contains sugar, while Candy B contains Chemical X and Y to bring the sweet taste --> go for Candy A
This is the exact thing that's happening in the argument (however, here we are not sure wherever those chemicals are present in the Regular one, but that doesn't make any difference either). The point the argument is trying to prove - Regular Cheetah Sweet is better than the diet one because [of reasons stated....]
Now A has two potential problems: 1. We don't know whether the "affect" is positive or negative. If it's positive, then the whole argument is at stake. 2. "anyone" - The logical opposite of anyone [=all] is some [ anything between 1 - 99 in a sample space of 100]. So, for a sample of 1 and 99, you will have two different possibilities. This is the exact reason why you should be always wary of this kind of words in a Necessary assumptions question. While they are perfectly fine for Sufficient Assumption.
The key here is that you don't even have to get to #2 if you have attention to the right details.
devavrat wrote:
Why cant Option B be right? If option B is assumed, it shows that the chemicals cannot be removed from the drink and hence the normal drink is needed. If the chemicals could be removed then there was no need of switching back to the normal drink
Option D says that sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than chemicals. More deleterious effect means it still has an effect so either way the athletes should stop consuming the drink
Can someone pls explain
Posted from my mobile device
Yes, you are dealing with possibility, and we don't consider possibility when we deal with an argument, unless the argument allows us to do that.
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Aug 2019, 07:55
Xylan wrote:
TakeAway:
If the author is calling X better than Y and even recommending X, then on a measurement-scale, X MUST score better rank/marks than Y.
Are you trying to create some kind of Pattern. If you are, never ever try it in GMAT Verbal.
Xylan wrote:
The negation of the correct assumption choice MUST break the conclusion.
No ! the assumption when negated should break the "link" between the Premise and Conclusion. In fact, the assumption exist in itself in the "link". That's how we define the scope for an assumption question.
Xylan wrote:
Do NOT settle for a mere correct answer. Go beyond and OWN the question!
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 182
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Aug 2019, 08:51
godot53 wrote:
Xylan wrote:
TakeAway:
If the author is calling X better than Y and even recommending X, then on a measurement-scale, X MUST score better rank/marks than Y.
Are you trying to create some kind of Pattern. If you are, never ever try it in GMAT Verbal.
Nope. Not creating a pattern. That's the last thing I would recommend to anyone. By thinking from the author's perspective, I am looking for the reason/thought-process why the author recommended X over Y despite having information ONLY about Y.
godot53 wrote:
Xylan wrote:
The negation of the correct assumption choice MUST break the conclusion.
No ! the assumption when negated should break the "link" between the Premise and Conclusion. In fact, the assumption exist in itself in the "link". That's how we define the scope for an assumption question.
Nice. A great way to look at CR-arguments.
godot53 wrote:
Xylan wrote:
Do NOT settle for a mere correct answer. Go beyond and OWN the question!
Perfect.
Cheers !
Cheers !
gmatclubot
Re: Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released
[#permalink]
02 Aug 2019, 08:51
close
78% (01:22) correct 
