Some scientists hypothesize that sugar is a contributing factor to a s

Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption- Doesnt strengthen/ weaken the argument at hand.
On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all- This is a fact, doesnt strengthen or weaken.
The amount of sugar contained in one can of soda equals the amount that the average non-soda drinker consumes in three days- This doesnt tell if making the switch to diet soda will help/harm in any way.
Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats- this is a definite weakener as it says that there is link at all between diet soda and having a lower probability of getting cancer. WEAKENER
Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption- This strongly favors the switch to diet soda as sugar is the most imp factor that causes cancer. STRENGTHEN

Conclusion: Here the main conclusion of the argument is that by replacing diet soda for regular soda pop one can reduce the chances of getting pancreatic cancer

Any statement which can support, or removes the doubt about other possible factors will strengthen the above conclusion. Similarly any statement, which can cast the doubt will weaken the conclusion.

Strengthen: Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption.
Weaken: Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats

Strengthen- Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption (Answer E)
Weaken- On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all (Answer B)

Hypothesis: sugar is a contributing factor to a specific type of pancreatic cancer
Findings: people who consume at least 2 carbonated drinks containing sugar per day have a 90% higher rate of pancreatic cancer than those who drink the same number of diet drinks per day
Conclusion: if we were to substitute diet soda for regular soda pop, it would considerably reduce our chances of getting pancreatic cancer

A: Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption
It does not matter to this argument whether average person’s daily sugar consumption comes from beverage or otherwise. Hence, out.

If diet soda drinkers already consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all, this gives us an alternate reason of lower rate of pancreatic cancer in diet soda drinkers. Hence, B weakens the conclusion.

C is comparing regular soda drinkers to non-soda drinkers. However, we wanna compare diet soda drinkers to regular soda drinkers. Hence, C is out.

Link between NutraSweet and cancer is inconclusive. So, we are not sure whether this strengthens or weakens the conclusion. Hence, D is out.

No other factor contributes as highly as sugar indicates that substituting diet soda for regular soda will help to achieve the purpose of reducing chances of getting pancreatic cancer. Hence, E strengthens the conclusion.

Strengthen = Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption
Weakened = Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats

Let's solve it like a CR question:
Premise: Some scientists hypothesize that sugar is a contributing factor to a specific type of pancreatic cancer. They have found that people who consume at least 2 carbonated drinks containing sugar per day have a 90% higher rate of pancreatic cancer than those who drink the same number of diet drinks per day.

Conclusion: Therefore, if we were to substitute diet soda for regular soda pop, it would considerably reduce our chances of getting pancreatic cancer.

Argument is that Regular soda contain sugar. Sugar increases likelihood of pancreatic cancer. So switch to diet soda, which contains less sugar, would be helpful to reduce the chances of pancreatic cancer.

Prethinking - This would work only if sugar intake through soda is a major contributor of a average person's sugar intake.

Let's first answer the strengthen question:
Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption: This option confirms that the soda's are main contributors to average persons sugar intake, similar to what we taught in prethinking. So switching to diet soda would do wonders for a average person. Lets keep this option.
On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all: This is a shell game. It just mentions that sugar intake is less, but it doesn't mention by what %. Also it could also happen that regular soda drinkers can consume less sugar per day than those who do not consume any soda at all. So this option doesn't help.
The amount of sugar contained in one can of soda equals the amount that the average non-soda drinker consumes in three days: In our argument, we are concerned only with regular vs diet soda drinkers. Hence this is out of scope.
Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats: This could be a weakener, but the we it also creates a equivalency between sugar and Nutrasweet. Hence this is incorrect.
Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption: This is also a strengthener, but we have to assume again that rats and humans react on food. Hence this could be incorrect.

So strengthener: Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption.
Weakener: Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats.

Statement 1: Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption
Neither strengthener nor weakener.
Reason: Beverages doesn't equal soda. There are umpteen types of beverages that people consume. The conclusion is strictly about soda.

Statement 2: On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all.
Weakens the conclusion.
If diet soda drinkers consume less sugar then the added benefit of diet soda is questionable.

Statement 3: The amount of sugar contained in one can of soda equals the amount that the average non-soda drinker consumes in three days.
Neither strengthener nor weakener.
This is irrelevant as long as there is no guarantee that there are sufficient consumers of soda for this fact to affect the outcome.

Statement 4: Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats.
Neither strengthener nor weakener.
We don't know if NutraSweet is the goldmine constituent in diet sodas that limit the sugar content. It could be something else in that case this statement will hold no merit in affecting the outcome.

Statement 5: Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption.
Strengthens the conclusion.
If the only cause for pancreatic cancer (specific type of pancreatic cancer is included in this set) is sugared soda consumption then we need to take the conclusion seriously regarding switching from regular soda to diet soda to inhibit chances of getting pancreatic cancer. This statement seriously affects the outcome (conclusion) and hence is our strengthener.

Synopsis: More sugared soda, higher chances of pancreatic cancer. Switch to diet soda and reduce pancreatic cancer chances

With strengthen and weaken questions, we have to attack the conclusion. With strengthen, make the conclusion stronger and with weaken, make the conclusion weaker. Let us first see what the conclusion is:

Conclusion: Therefore, if we were to substitute diet soda for regular soda pop, it would considerably reduce our chances of getting pancreatic cancer.

So, conclusion states that reduced sugar intake (regular soda pop reduction) will lead to reduced cancer chances.
So, in order to strengthen, we need to reaffirm that sugar and regular soda DOES lead to cancer
In order to weaken, we need to go the opposite way that sugar and regular soda does not lead to cancer and there might be an alternative reason for the same

Let us now examine the answer choices:

Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption

YES! Beverages (including sugared soda pops) are ONLY little over 1/3rd of the average daily sugar consumption, meaning 2/3rds are still from other sources, so pancreatic cancer could be because of other sources of sugar other than regular sugared soda pops. WEAKEN

On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all

No, we are concerned with regular vs diet soda and soda with respect to cancer, not included here

The amount of sugar contained in one can of soda equals the amount that the average non-soda drinker consumes in three days

No, we are concerned with the link between sugar and cancer and the comparison between diet and regular soda. This point does not include either of those, thus irrelevant to the discussion

Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats

No, the results were inconclusive meaning that diet sodas could still be or not be linked to cancer. If they were, then that would weaken the argument, if they were not, that would strengthen the argument. But since results were inconclusive, we cannot say for sure in this point

Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption

YES! (STRENGTHEN) This states that sugar and regular soda pop is the highest cause for pancreatic cancer more than any other dietary choice. So, it is what causes pancreatic cancer


Answer:

WEAKEN: Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption

STRENGTHEN: Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption

Some scientists hypothesize that sugar is a contributing factor to a specific type of pancreatic cancer. They have found that people who consume at least 2 carbonated drinks containing sugar per day have a 90% higher rate of pancreatic cancer than those who drink the same number of diet drinks per day. Therefore, if we were to substitute diet soda for regular soda pop, it would considerably reduce our chances of getting pancreatic cancer.

From the following list, one answer choice would strengthen the conclusion and one would weaken it. Make one selection in each column.A. Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption


A. Beverages account for slightly over one third of the average person’s daily sugar consumption

If beverages (ie, carbonated or diet drinks etc) constitute only one third of the average person's daily consumption, switching to diet soda will only marginally reduce (and, NOT considerably reduce) our chances of getting pancreatic cancer. It is so, because the balance foods containing two-thirds of the average person's daily sugar composition remain the same.

Hence. WEAKEN the conclusion


B. On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all

Irrelevant comparison ie, between diet soda drinkers and those who do not consume any soda at all


C. The amount of sugar contained in one can of soda equals the amount that the average non-soda drinker consumes in three days

Just an additional piece of information..No impact on the Conclusion


D. Studies regarding the link between NutraSweet, a substance found in most diet sodas, and cancer have proven inconclusive in laboratory rats

Nutrasweet component (may or may not be sugar) is again just an additional piece of information..No impact on the Conclusion


E. Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption

If it's only the sugar which is the contributory factor towards onset of pancreatic cancer, it strengthens the conclusion that 'if we were to substitute diet soda for regular soda pop, it would considerably reduce our chances of getting pancreatic cancer'.

Hence. STRENGTHEN the conclusion

Hello Everyone!

OA to this question is posted, It is:

Strengthen: Using laboratory rats, scientists have determined that no other dietary factor contributes more highly with pancreatic cancer than sugared soda consumption
Weaken: On average, diet soda drinkers consume less sugar per day than do those who do not consume any soda at all

This is a 700-750 Level hard question and only UtkarshAnand got it correct. WoW.

Official Explanation is posted.

Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

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.