Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law

Question

Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law requiring that foods containing genetically altered ingredients be labeled accordingly. Food producers, fearing that consumers would understand the labels as warnings and thus avoid their products, rushed to rid those products of genetically altered ingredients. Other countries contemplating such labeling should therefore refrain, because many crops are genetically altered to be pest resistant; loss of demand for these genetically altered crops would necessitate production alternatives, all of which are dangerous and pesticide intensive.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist’s argument depends?

(A) In general, people interpret labels stating that some food ingredients are genetically altered as warnings.

(B) Before the United Kingdom instituted a law requiring that foods containing genetically altered ingredients be labeled as such, almost all foods sold there contained genetically altered ingredients.

(C) The reactions of food producers in other countries to laws requiring labeling of foods containing genetically altered ingredients are likely to be similar to the reactions of food producers in the United Kingdom.

(D) Warning labels on food products have proven to be effective in reducing consumption of those products.

(E) Countries that institute new food labeling regulations often experience a change in consumer eating habits.

ankushsambare · Answer

Conclusion:
Other countries should refrain from requiring labels on foods containing genetically altered ingredients.
Premises:
 
 In the UK, foods with genetically altered ingredients had to be labeled. 
 Food producers feared consumers would avoid labeled products. 
 Producers therefore removed genetically altered ingredients from products. 
 Many genetically altered crops are pest resistant. 
 Without those crops, alternatives would be more dangerous and pesticide intensive.  
Prethinking:
The argument moves from “this happened in the UK” to “other countries should not do it.”
So the argument must assume that other countries would react similarly to the UK. Without that, the UK example would not support the broader conclusion.
Now eliminate choices:
(A) Says consumers generally interpret labels as warnings.
Not necessary. Producers only feared this in the UK; the conclusion about other countries mainly requires similar producer reactions.
(B) Talks about how many foods originally contained altered ingredients.
Irrelevant.
(C) Says producers in other countries would likely react similarly to UK producers.
This is exactly the needed bridge from the UK example to other countries.
(D) Says warning labels reduce consumption.
Too strong and unnecessary. Actual reduced consumption was never proven.
(E) Says labeling laws often change eating habits.
Not enough. The argument specifically depends on producer reactions.
Answer: C

guddo · Answer

Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law requiring that foods containing genetically altered ingredients be labeled accordingly. Food producers, fearing that consumers would understand the labels as warnings and thus avoid their products, rushed to rid those products of genetically altered ingredients. Other countries contemplating such labeling should therefore refrain, because many crops are genetically altered to be pest resistant; loss of demand for these genetically altered crops would necessitate production alternatives, all of which are dangerous and pesticide intensive.
 
 Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist’s argument depends?

The environmentalist argues that other countries should not require labels because the UK labeling law caused producers to remove genetically altered ingredients, and the same kind of reaction elsewhere would reduce demand for pest-resistant crops.  The key assumption  is that producers in other countries would react  like UK producers did .

(A) In general, people interpret labels stating that some food ingredients are genetically altered as warnings.

Wrong. The argument does not need consumers actually to interpret the labels as warnings. It only needs producers to fear that consumers will do so and react by removing the ingredients.

(B) Before the United Kingdom instituted a law requiring that foods containing genetically altered ingredients be labeled as such, almost all foods sold there contained genetically altered ingredients.

Wrong. The argument does not require almost all UK foods to have contained genetically altered ingredients.

(C) The reactions of food producers in other countries to laws requiring labeling of foods containing genetically altered ingredients are likely to be similar to the reactions of food producers in the United Kingdom.

Correct. The argument uses the UK case to warn other countries. If producers in other countries would not react similarly, then the UK example would not support the recommendation that other countries refrain from labeling.

(D) Warning labels on food products have proven to be effective in reducing consumption of those products.

Wrong. The labels are not necessarily official warning labels. The issue is producer reaction to possible consumer interpretation.

(E) Countries that institute new food labeling regulations often experience a change in consumer eating habits.

Wrong. This is too general. The argument specifically depends on producers removing genetically altered ingredients from products, not merely on some change in eating habits.

Answer: (C)

officiisimpedit · Answer

But will the conclusion still hold true if the food producers didnot react the same way they did in UK but the consumers do take such labelling as a warning wont that lead to reduction in demand?

guddo · Answer

No. That would be a different argument.

This argument works like this:

First, labels make producers fear that consumers will treat the labels as warnings.

Second, because of that fear, producers remove genetically altered ingredients.

Third, that removal reduces demand for genetically altered crops.

So the argument depends on producers in other countries reacting similarly.  If they do not remove the ingredients , the argument’s stated reasoning breaks.

Your point about consumers treating labels as warnings could still reduce demand, but that is  not the route used in this argument . It would be a different way to support the conclusion, not the required assumption here.

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
The environmentalist's argument begins by describing how, when the UK began requiring that foods with genetically altered ingredients be labeled as such, food producers got rid of genetically altered ingredients. The argument then concludes that other countries should not require labeling of genetically altered ingredients, since many crops are genetically altered to resist pests and if genetically altered crops aren't used, then dangerous and pesticide-intensive crops will have to be grown instead. You are asked to identify an assumption that the argument depends on.

The Correct Answer:

C  The environmentalist's argument is based on the idea that if other countries do what the UK did, the results will be the same. If food producers in other countries wouldn't react the same way as food producers in the UK did, then there is no reason to expect food producers in other countries to get rid of genetically altered ingredients. There is then no reason to think that dangerous and pesticide-intensive crops will be grown instead of genetically altered crops in those other countries, so we lose the grounds on which the argument concluded that other countries should not require labeling of genetically altered ingredients.

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

A  The argument says that food producers in the UK worried that consumers would interpret the genetically altered ingredient labels as warnings. But this is a claim about how food producers expected consumers to interpret the labels, whereas (A) is about how consumers actually do interpret labels. The way in which consumers actually interpret labels plays no role in the argument. (The argument doesn't even tell us how UK consumers actually interpreted the labels.)

B  The argument states that, after the labeling law was instituted in the UK, food producers rushed to eliminate genetically altered ingredients from those foods containing them. So evidently, some foods sold in the UK prior to the labeling law contained genetically altered ingredients. But the reasoning in the argument would still be sound even if most foods in the UK did not contain genetically altered ingredients.

D  The argument does not claim that the labels indicating genetically altered ingredients are warning labels; it just says that food producers worried that consumers would interpret them as warnings. Since (D) is about something that the argument never discusses, there is no reason to think that the argument depends on (D).

E  The argument needs to assume that food  producers  in other countries would react to a specific food labeling regulation in the same way UK food producers did. But it doesn't need to assume anything about actual changes in consumer eating habits; in particular, it doesn't need to assume that a change in consumer eating habits often results from new food labeling regulations.

Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law

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

Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted a law

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