Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released

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.

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

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 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!

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

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.

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.

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.



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 !

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 !

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 !

Why not C? Can someone please explain?

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

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.