Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released

Question

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.

ConnectTheDots · Answer

", 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.

GyanOne · Answer

Should be (D)

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.

greatps24 · Answer

Hi GyanOne

What is wrong with option A?

GyanOne · Answer

greatps24,

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.

Archit143 · Answer

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, :-D

In simpler terms...read the argument as A causes B , so Use C.....think about the assumption Consider kudos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D

Carcass · Answer

read carefully the options

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. Hope is clear

felippemed · Answer

I always stick with the suggestion from CR ZOMG  https://gmatclub.com/forum/post775474.html#775474

In this specific case, the answer is clearly a  Defender

Skyline393 · Answer

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

harshey77 · Answer

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.

eka9045 · Answer

I too have the same query! Need to know how to tackle these type of questions.

XyLan · Answer

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 .

devavrat · Answer

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

XyLan · Answer

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  completely   UNFIT  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  
  
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!

godot53 · Answer

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 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 is some . 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. 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. Cheers !

godot53 · Answer

Are you trying to create some kind of Pattern. If you are, never ever try it in GMAT Verbal. 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. Perfect. Cheers !

XyLan · Answer

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. Nice. A great way to look at CR-arguments. Cheers !

MooneeyTunes · Answer

Why not C? Can someone please explain?

tinbq · Answer

Hi expetrs, 
Please help to explain why each choice is right or wrong. Thanks a lots.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Pre-thinking:

Atheletes have two options:

i) Zero calorie drink - it has added chemicals which have an adverse effect on the body, but no sugar
ii) Regular drink - it contains sugar but none of the added chemicals contained in the zero calorie drink

Conclusion is that athletes would be better served by consuming the regular drink. This can only be true if the damage caused by chemicals in the zero calorie drink is  more  than the damage caused by sugar in the regular drink (else they would be better off consuming the zero calorie drink). Let us examine the answer options:

A. The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line.  This does not compare the two drinks in any way. Eliminate.

B. Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals.  This does not compare the two drinks in any way. Eliminate.

C. Regular Cheetah Sweet is at least as tasty as Cheetah Sweet’s zero-calorie line.  The conclusion is about the health effects of the two drinks, which are not addressed by this option, and not the taste. Eliminate.

D. Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question.  Correct answer and consistent with our pre-thinking.

E. Cheetah Sweet has no plans to discontinue its regular line.  This does not compare the two drinks in any way. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released

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

Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released

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