Donations of imported food will be distributed to children in famine

Question

Donations of imported food will be distributed to children in famine-stricken countries in the form of free school meals. The process is efficient because the children are easy to reach at the schools and cooking facilities are often available on site.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the efficiency of the proposed process?

A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children.
B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.
C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.
D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.
E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made.

ID: 500121
CR90661.01
Verbal Review 2020 NEW QUESTION

HaileyCusimano · Accepted Answer

On this question, we're looking to weaken, or cast doubt... but we need to be careful what we're trying to cast doubt on. If we're casting doubt on the efficiency, we want reason to believe that despite that "the children are easy to reach at the schools" and "cooking facilities are often available on site," this may not be an efficient plan. Let's take a look at our answers...

A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children.  <- This answer, while providing a possible negative outcome of the plan, does not impact the potential efficiency of the plan based on the evidence given. It is thus, irrelevant to the question we're trying to answer.

B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.  <- Again, this doesn't impact whether it makes sense to use the evidence cited to draw the conclusion given.

C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.  <- This impacts our argument, as it gives us reason why despite having facilities onsite to cook, those facilities may not be reliable/consistently available for use and, thus, may not provide an efficient/effective plan. We'll want to look at our remaining answer choices, but this one's looking pretty promising!

D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.  <- Whether the program is of more benefit to one than the other doesn't matter to us here.

E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made.  <- Again, pretty irrelevant to the argument being made.

So, in this question in particular, many of the answer choices addressed a potential impact to the situation at large/those affected - but only one weakened the specific argument being made. If we can identify the argument structure and specifically what the question is asking us for, analysis of the answer choices becomes far more efficient (clearly - a recurring topic in this question!) and we are able to determine that  (C)  is the only answer that weakens the connection between "The process is efficient" and its premises: "the children are easy to reach at the schools and cooking facilities are often available on site."

GMATNinja · Answer

Take a look at the exact wording of the question:
 
Out of the five answer choices, we're looking for the one that casts  the most doubt  on the efficiency of the plan. So if (C) casts some doubt and the other answer choices do not, then (C) is the correct answer.

In addition, the word "often" is not quite as neutral as you've made it. If schools "often" have cooking facilities, then maybe the plan IS a good one, even if cooking facilities are required. Sure, it might not help the children at the schools that do not have cooking facilities, but it still might be an efficient way to distribute foods to  most  children.

Here's a breakdown of the author's argument:

Conclusion:  "The process   is efficient."

Support for the conclusion:

1) "the children are easy to reach at the schools," and 
2) "cooking facilities are often available on site."

(C) severely undermines the second piece of support offered by the author, and so casts doubt on the author's conclusion.

I hope that helps!

krazzysaad · Answer

The argument relies on the efficiency to provide food to famine-struck children via schools.
Let's find what weaken this

A. Possibly, but the children will still be fed. 
B. We don't care about how it effects the economy, our aim is to feed the children which is being met
C. Hmm, yes. How will they cook if fuel supply is not constant. Good choice, let's keep going.
D. Irrelevant
E. Irrelevant

(C) is the only relevant option and is our answer.

Give Kudos to promote more quality answers!!
Cheers to studying!!

suganyam · Answer

A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children.-no
B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.-No
C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.-YES
D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.-No
E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made.-No

ritikawadhwa1234 · Answer

To solve it I just assumed , we want food to reach the children. Rest all is noise

So 1) children should go to school 
2) food is there

A. rejected - dont care we just want children to eat
 B.No -dont care we just want children to eat
C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.-YES ; how will they eat if it cant be cooked 
D.No dont care we just want children to eat
 E. -No; dont care we just want children to eat

Nipungupta9081 · Answer

Answer C

A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children. -  OUT OF SCOPE ( X )

B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.  - OUT OF SCOPE ( X )

C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities. -  IF the fuel needed for cooking is not adequate then the food sent will be of no use since it can't be served to the children which is the main Reason. ( ✔ )

D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.  - IRRELEVANT ( X )

E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made. -  IRRELEVANT ( X )

gmexamtaker1 · Answer

Hello experts,
The problem I had with this question had to do with the word "often" . Specifically, the author says that "cooking facilities are OFTEN available on site, so this made me think. If since the beginning of the project we already know that some schools have cooking facilities whereas other schools do not and we still want to proceed with the plan it means that cooking facilities are not crucial and that the foods that will be imported can be consumed without any further preparation (ready meals) . So, this single word made me pick A ,now I know that A does not impact the plan but is rather one outcome of the plan but still I felt that C cannot cast a serious doubt on the proposal because, as I have already written, using the word "often" means that we are already prepared for schools that do not include cooking facilities . Could you give me your opinion regarding the way that I handled this question, because I think that the way I "see" some problems makes me prone to mistakes like in this case.

Davronjon · Answer

The creator of the test question variants designed them in such a way to assess the test-taker's ability to identify the most relevant factor that directly challenges the argument's efficiency. The options often include distractors or traps, which may seem plausible but do not directly address the main issue in the argument. By analyzing the tactics behind each option, we can understand how the test creator attempts to challenge the test-taker's critical thinking skills.

A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children.

Tactic: Shifting focus from the distribution process's efficiency to its impact on the school's primary function. This option distracts the test-taker by raising a different concern that doesn't directly challenge the efficiency of the food distribution process.

B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.

Tactic: Introducing a side effect (economic impact) of the distribution process that doesn't directly address the process's efficiency. This option presents an unrelated consequence to confuse the test-taker and lead them away from the main issue.

C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.

Tactic: This option directly challenges the efficiency of the proposed process, making it the correct answer. It demonstrates how an essential component (fuel) of the distribution process might be insufficient, undermining the argument's claim.

D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.

Tactic: Shifting the focus to the relative benefits between donor and recipient countries. This option distracts the test-taker by introducing an unrelated comparison, steering them away from the core issue of the distribution process's efficiency.

E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made.

Tactic: Introducing a political aspect that doesn't directly relate to the efficiency of the proposed process. This option attempts to lure the test-taker into considering the political implications of food donations instead of the main argument.

In conclusion, the test creator uses various tactics to craft options that appear plausible or introduce secondary issues, attempting to distract the test-taker from identifying the most relevant factor directly challenging the argument's efficiency. Recognizing these tactics can help improve critical thinking and analytical skills, allowing the test-taker to choose the correct answer more effectively.

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Donations of imported food will be distributed to children in famine

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

Donations of imported food will be distributed to children in famine

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