engineered foods

Question

So called "engineered foods" usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption that:
(a) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength
(b) Pple who are not athletes require neither connective tissue nor muscle strength
(c) If an engineered food does not improved muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes in consuming it
(d) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be provided more easily elsewhere is unhealthy
(e) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue

ranga41 · Answer

IMO C

gotoknow3 · Answer

Agree with C 
If an engineered food does not improved muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes in consuming it

riteshgupta1 · Answer

C it is..

Carloz · Answer

i'll go with A...if I am right I will explain, but i got it down to A or C. But C seems too absolute.

HIMALAYA · Answer

agree with C.

popew626 · Answer

I'd go with A.

The author's conclusion is that athletes who want to gain muscular strength should not eat engineered food. His evidence is that engineered food causes growth hormones to be made which in turn builds more connective tissue. This connective tissue doesn't result in an increase in strength. Muscular mass is mentioned here as important to muscular strength. 

C sounds out of scope. The author's conclusion is on muscular strength and engineered foods, not the other benefits of engineered food. 

I've been wrong many times before though...

kwasi7 · Answer

Wow

this is a tricky one. How i wish both A and C are correct. I will go with A and wait for OA.

gandy_achar · Answer

A. Since the conclusion states that athletes who want to improve their muscle strength I would choose A over C.

GA

Dilshod · Answer

Agree on A. 
Not C, cause, the argument says that it is of no use for athletes who need to improve the strength

Arsene_Wenger · Answer

(A) for too.

Bhai · Answer

I could not connect A with conclusion. C makes more sense to me.

taquanghai · Answer

A for me!

We have the premise that  these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in  muscle mass   and a conclusion that   consuming engineered foods does not improve  the muscle strength  . 

 these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in  muscle mass   --->  consuming engineered foods does not improve  the muscle strength  . Not clear because the premise talks about muscle and the conclusion talks about muscle strength: diffirent things. So we need a relationship between muscle mass and muscle strength. 

A states that.

Must be A

ronybtl · Answer

The OA is C.

Does anyone want to try again to rationalise why C and not A?

A: Is A incorrect because the answer never specified what kind of strength? 
B: Out of context. Nothing in stimulus refers to non-athletes
D: Stimulus mentioned. To assume D is to assume growth hormones are intrinsically unhealthy, which then is not sppted by stimulus.
E: Not sppted by stimulus.

engineered foods

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