Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantari

Hi VeritasKarishma - what if option B had "49 % of the older people eat at fast food restaurants more frequently than the average young person"

Would that weaken in your view ?

Initially I thought it would weaken but now I am thinking , even if the percentage is 49 % or 100 %, it may not go against the premise

""studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants"

because it quite possible that 49 % or 100 % of the elderly just frequent fast food restaurants and it's quite possible they just order a coffee (1 $ value) whereas the young may frequent less and order on average 15 $ worth of food perhaps

Thoughts on if (B) was 100 % or 49 % instead of 'Some" -- would that still not weaken or would that weaken ?

Thank you !

Thank you !

Hi VeritasKarishma - Just one last follow-up

If "Some" Was 49 % in option B --it technically will not go against the premise [the premise says "studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurant, so it could be a razor thin difference technically]

Option B tweaked) Studies have shown that 49 % of the older population eat more frequently than youngsters in fast food restaurants

Would this weaken the argument in your view ?

Why or why not ?
Thank you

There is no evidence to suggest that the inbound population will be any younger than the current population. What if a new retirement village opened up on the island? B or D feel equally specious as potential answers here.

Between B and D.
Not B because this option uses the word "some"
IMO: D

B is telling that some older people eat more than the average young person. Let there are 5 elderly people eat more than the average of young persons and the number you customers are 300. So the total consumption by young persons will outweigh. If the answer option would have ensured number of old persons are more than the number of young persons then Option B would be the answere.

On the other hand, D says the overall population growing steadily. The overall population comprises both old and young people. So, the answer is D.

Why isn't A correct? What it suggests is that there is increased demand so it’s not necessarily the case that the number of restaurants will decrease.. After all, why would restaurants get bigger if fewer customers are coming in?

GMATNinja

I am still a little hazy on this one GMATNinja. I am number guy, I get that if overall population increase, the whole demographic could grow proportionally. Thus, it could offset the number of old people intown and continue to have a steady number of fast food customer base. However, the "average" continues to grow as the problem stated. I thought this would overwrite any assumption *we thought* the author were making. In a way, I think the statement is trying to say there are way more old people and will continue to outweigh the young.
I probably do not make any sense here please correct me if I am wrong or assuming things. I am doing this assumption identification practice, and the one made in this excerpt: 1) no other possible factors would suddenly increase the demand on fast food 2) the overall age of the population will continue to grow old regardless of possible outside factors like migrations. I was ohonestly only looking at choices that resembles 1).

Hi Charles,
I'm still struggling with this one. I rejected "D" because
a.) it was questioning a premise that the average age of the town is increasing
b.) population increase can be from new birth or migration. You've explained the this one, and I get that.
I picked "A" as my answer because I thought of this stimulus as Cause (increase in average age) > Effect (decrease in number of restaurants) and "A" provides an alternate cause for the number of restaurant to come down.
Let me know; thanks!

CONCLUSION - Number of fast food restaurants in Cantaria are likely to decrease

GIVEN -

1) Fast food restaurants are 45% in Cantaria
2) It's customers are mostly young
3) With the increasing age, people are less likely tp eat in fast food restaurants
4) Average age of Cantaria is increasing and will continue

WEAKNER - What new information would reduce the belief in the conclusion?

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Getting big doesn't impact the conclusion
B) Some older people - maybe from 0 to 100%, so concretely it doesn't weaken
C) Eating regularly in regular restaurants - not the part of argument
D) CORRECT - With the increase in population, the young population would be maintained and thus the restaurants won't decrease
E) Actually strengthens the conclusion

Let met try.

Why is B Wrong?

Because, the old people must have been eating before this information got published, and they will continue to eat. So, No change.

Why this thought ?
Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.
Eat is simple present, which implies fact or habit so if its a habit it must have been true before as well.

Makes sense?

Please comment to let me know!

In my opinion, basis of explanation for this post is incorrect.
Given stem says ''45 % of all restaurants" and not "45 % of population/people".

Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantaria. Customers at these restaurants tend to be young; in fact, studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants. Since the average age of the Canatrian population is gradually rising and will continue to do so, the number of fast-food restaurants is likely to decrease.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers.

(B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.

(C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants.

(D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily.

(E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home.

Gist: The number of fastfood restaurants is likely to decrease (due to the average age going up). An obvious gap is that what if the population is being replenished by younger people at an increasing or positive rate. That would mean that even though on average age rising, if the total number of people is increasing, more young people are still available for the businesses to run, which would undermine the gist. Option D hits right at this point, undermining the assumption made by author (that the total population is either the same or decreasing in future, so there are no young people replacing the elderly people at a positive rate).

Population increased => number of young folks increased

average increase => number of aged people also increased steadily

so this means that there needn't be a decrease in number of fast food restaurants as average age increases as the upcoming young folks will compensate - option D is right

With due respect to all the posters, allow me to post my flawed logic despite having gone through all the excellent explanations (trying to improve my thought process when it comes to GMAT verbal

I chose A

Rationale :

Reason for fewer restaurants => They've gotten bigger and NOT anything to do with the ageing population, HENCE weaken

What's wrong with this approach?

Posted from my mobile device