Premise: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems.
Conclusion : this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

a)The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
We can't say this an assumption to conclusion. The soft drink might already be in distribution or it might have just been introduced in the mass production.

b)Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
Again it is not related to conclusion.

c)Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
This might be related to conclusion. Lets try to negate this. Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is NOT harmful to consumer health. So it completely weakens the conclusion. Hmm... This might be a correct option. lets keep this.

d)The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
This has no relation with the conclusion. Leave this.

e)Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.
This is also related to conclusion. Lets negate this option. Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually NOT experience serious cardiac problems. Hmm this also weakens conclusion.

So, there is a confusion between option C & E making this questions tough. I donno how to reach to final answer "C" from here....
_________________

zeroed down to C and E. C is more relevant that E.

on negating C, the conclusion falls apart.

Souvik, this is a great question. To attack assumption questions, one must first identify the premise and the conclusion of the argument.

Premise
1) "The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra."
2) Ephedra stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems"

Conclusion
"Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health
and
Should be banned from distribution in our state."

The conclusion begs the question --> why is Mango Paradise harmful to health? & why should it be banned? We can start to think about possible reasons its harmful to health.. it has in it 2.5% chemical that can cause serious health problems... Therefore the author believes that the 2.5% content is the cause of the health problems. Something that the stimulus hints at. Hence the answer is C.
_________________

Ephedra is focussed to be the problematic ingredient.
Hence Only C.
E missed the bus as it was certain most consumers will eventually develop cardiac problems, while the statement mentioned stimulation and possible heart problems.
_________________

Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?

a)The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production. -Okay. This is just a fact set.

b)Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink. -We are not worried about the consumers' taste pattern

c)Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health. -Correct.

d)The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise. -We are certainly not worried about this either.

e)Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems. -We don't know. This is a very extreme statement. The argument uses the words "may cause" that depict that the even might happen but is not certain to happen.

+1 C

Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Here the main argument P >= 2.5 % is present in a Soft drink and this amount causes cardiac problems. So Assumption is If P is present grater than 2.5 % in any Drink that will necessarily cause problem.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?


a)The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.

b)Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.

c)Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.

d)The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.

e)Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.

The answer is E here. I disagree with C. The passage says “but may also result in serious cardiac problems” this part of the premise states that the reason the drink is unhealthy is because it may cause cardiac problems in its users. The conclusion is that we should ban the drink (and if the reason we should ban the drink is because it is unhealthy due to the potential for cardiac problems), then E would be correct because the author is assuming that all users will have a cardiac reaction to the drink if they use it (since he states that it should be banned). C doesn’t make sense. The passage doesn’t talk about other drinks, it talks about the one drink.

Posted from my mobile device

Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?
A)The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
We don't know if it will start to be produced or if it is already being produced.
b)Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
Enjoying the taste is not the theme of the argument but the risk of harmful effects is.
c)Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
Correct, we and author assumes that Ephedra in that quantity is harmful
d)The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
Affiliation is out of scope.
e)Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.
not true and is a very strong statement for assumption.

The whole game between C and E is won by C because of usage of 'most consumers' in choice E. Had it been 'all' instead of 'most' then E would have been the winner.

Let me ask you this: "What is the logical opposite of ANY?" Some not, right?

Negate (C): Some (0->99%) drink that contains at least 2.5% of E are not harmful to consumer health. Does that leave the possibility that Mango Paradise is harmful and should be banned? For that reason, (C) is not a very strong answer. Neither is (E). IMO, this is not a good question.
_________________

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

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.
_________________