Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
01 Aug 2017, 10:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
58% (02:04) correct
42%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 1007
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Consumer advocate: In some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays in order to extend shelf life. There are, however, good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. First, they are exposed to the radioactive substances that produce the gamma rays. Second, irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving behind harmful chemical residues. Third, irradiation spawns unique radiolytic products that cause serious health problems, including cancer.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the consumer advocate’s argument EXCEPT:
(A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food.
(B) Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.
(C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged.
(D) The amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods.
(E) A study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not.
Source: LSAT
Each of the following, if true, weakens the consumer advocate’s argument EXCEPT:
(A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food.
(B) Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.
(C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged.
(D) The amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods.
(E) A study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not.
Source: LSAT
02 Aug 2017, 06:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Good Question.
Conclusion: Using Irradiation is not a good idea.
Premise:
Three reasons
1. Radioactive elements present in these rays and then may get into the food.
2. Health Problems
3. Vitamin Content reduced.
We need to find 4 weakeners of the conclusion.
I can find something that says these reasons are still better than what would have happened otherwise.
(A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food. --> Okay, it is saying Reason 1 is not happening. OUT.
(B) Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.
(C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged. --> Vitamin is not changed. Awesome. OUT.
(D) The amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods. --> Oh, still better than the normal found. OUT.
(E) A study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not. --> ok, same rate with or without. OUT.
Conclusion: Using Irradiation is not a good idea.
Premise:
Three reasons
1. Radioactive elements present in these rays and then may get into the food.
2. Health Problems
3. Vitamin Content reduced.
We need to find 4 weakeners of the conclusion.
I can find something that says these reasons are still better than what would have happened otherwise.
(A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food. --> Okay, it is saying Reason 1 is not happening. OUT.
(B) Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.
(C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged. --> Vitamin is not changed. Awesome. OUT.
(D) The amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods. --> Oh, still better than the normal found. OUT.
(E) A study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not. --> ok, same rate with or without. OUT.
03 Aug 2017, 08:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
I am confused with the OA. Doesn't option B weaken the argument?
The conclusion is that irradiation is harmful. Weakening it would be:
1) it is not harmful or
2) the reasons provided in the argument isn't caused my irradiation.
"Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays."
The statement above means that cancer is not related to the radioactive substances hence weakening the argument.
Can someone explain my mistake in understanding this?
The conclusion is that irradiation is harmful. Weakening it would be:
1) it is not harmful or
2) the reasons provided in the argument isn't caused my irradiation.
"Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays."
The statement above means that cancer is not related to the radioactive substances hence weakening the argument.
Can someone explain my mistake in understanding this?
