Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
13 Jul 2024, 04:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
In other words, the claim is such that pupils don't consume too many snacks at school anyway, so limiting the offering of unhealthy foods available at the cafeteria would do very little to combat increasing obesity.
To cast some doubt on this claim, we need to find support for the importance of snack regulation at school cafeteria, whether it will be driven by disregarding the nutritionist's evidence or by bringing in some new facts.
(A)
This is an option that may fit, because forbidding the snacks at school may have an unexpected negative impact on the overall junk food consumption. Don't eliminate yet.
(B)
This actually looks like a strengthener, because it offers yet another reason why regulating the cafeteria snacks would do no good. Eliminate.
(C)
This is irrelevant, because it doesn't engage directly with the prompt and the whole concept of snack availability. Eliminate.
(D)
This point has some potential, because it casts some doubt on the validity of research, and the number of consumed cafeteria snacks is actally much higher. Don't eliminate yet.
(E)
While this seems like a good point, it actually doesnt contradict anything that the nutritionist said. The stats of about two snacks per week still remain unchanged, and plus, this statement also covers some healthy snacks, so isn't narrow enough to 'help' us. Eliminate.
So, we are left to choose between options A and D.
Personally, I don't find A convincing enough. Indeed, perhaps pupils will eat some more junk food at home - but as far as the nutritionist is concerned, their bad food consupmtion is already mostly happening at home, so this wouldn't really change the status quo all that much. Basically, this point partially falls into the same framework that the author follows.
However, D directly argues the reserach findings, undermining the evidence used for the conclusion. Therefore, for me the right answer is D.
To cast some doubt on this claim, we need to find support for the importance of snack regulation at school cafeteria, whether it will be driven by disregarding the nutritionist's evidence or by bringing in some new facts.
(A)
This is an option that may fit, because forbidding the snacks at school may have an unexpected negative impact on the overall junk food consumption. Don't eliminate yet.
(B)
This actually looks like a strengthener, because it offers yet another reason why regulating the cafeteria snacks would do no good. Eliminate.
(C)
This is irrelevant, because it doesn't engage directly with the prompt and the whole concept of snack availability. Eliminate.
(D)
This point has some potential, because it casts some doubt on the validity of research, and the number of consumed cafeteria snacks is actally much higher. Don't eliminate yet.
(E)
While this seems like a good point, it actually doesnt contradict anything that the nutritionist said. The stats of about two snacks per week still remain unchanged, and plus, this statement also covers some healthy snacks, so isn't narrow enough to 'help' us. Eliminate.
So, we are left to choose between options A and D.
Personally, I don't find A convincing enough. Indeed, perhaps pupils will eat some more junk food at home - but as far as the nutritionist is concerned, their bad food consupmtion is already mostly happening at home, so this wouldn't really change the status quo all that much. Basically, this point partially falls into the same framework that the author follows.
However, D directly argues the reserach findings, undermining the evidence used for the conclusion. Therefore, for me the right answer is D.
13 Jul 2024, 05:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
A. Teenagers are more likely to consume unhealthy snacks at home if they perceive a lack of desirable options at school.
- Explanation: This option suggests that if schools regulate snacks, teenagers might compensate by eating more unhealthy snacks at home. While this implies the regulation might not reduce overall unhealthy snack consumption, it doesn't directly call into question the conclusion that regulating school cafeterias wouldn't impact school-based consumption.
B. Many schools already limit the sale of certain types of unhealthy snacks, but they remain available through vending machines not controlled by the cafeteria.
- Explanation: This indicates that unhealthy snacks are still accessible at schools through other means. However, this does not directly challenge the conclusion that regulating cafeteria offerings would not impact overall teenage snack consumption. It suggests a potential loophole but doesn't address the study's findings directly.
C. Health education classes that discuss dietary choices can influence teenagers to make healthier eating decisions, independent of the school cafeteria offerings.
- Explanation: This suggests an alternative method to influence healthy eating but does not directly challenge the nutritionist's conclusion about regulating school cafeteria snacks. It introduces a different approach rather than questioning the study's findings.
Option D is the correct choice:
D. The study measured only the snacks consumed within school hours and did not account for additional consumption immediately before or after school.
Explanation: This option highlights a significant limitation in the study's data. If the study only measured snack consumption during school hours, it missed any unhealthy snacks consumed by teenagers right before or after school. This means the study's conclusion that teenagers do not heavily consume unhealthy snacks at school might be inaccurate or incomplete. Thus, regulating school cafeteria offerings could still significantly impact overall teenage snack consumption, contrary to the nutritionist's conclusion.
E. Teenagers often skip meals at home, which increases their likelihood of consuming snacks, both healthy and unhealthy, during school hours.
- Explanation: This option implies that teenagers may rely on school snacks due to skipping meals at home, which could increase their consumption of unhealthy snacks during school. However, it does not directly challenge the study's finding that average consumption of unhealthy snacks at school is less than two items per week. It provides context but doesn't directly undermine the study's conclusions.
In summary, Option D is the most compelling choice as it directly questions the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the study, suggesting that the measured snack consumption might not reflect the true extent of teenagers' unhealthy snacking behavior related to school.
13 Jul 2024, 05:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Nutritionist Claim: It has been proposed that to combat rising obesity rates among teenagers, schools should strictly regulate the snack options available in school cafeterias. Critics argue that teenagers will just bring less healthy snacks from home if they want them. However, a recent study shows that the average consumption of unhealthy snacks by teenagers at school is less than two items per week, suggesting that teenagers do not heavily consume these products at school anyway. Thus, regulating school cafeteria offerings would not significantly impact overall teenage snack consumption.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the nutritionist's conclusion?
Aim : To weaken the Nutritionist's conclusion.
Conclusion : regulating school cafeteria offerings would not significantly impact overall teenage snack consumption.
Option A: Doesn't fall in line with Nutritionist's conclusion.
Option B: Out of scope, Vending machine doesn't have anything to do here.
Option C: Out of scope, can't specifically track about individual's opinon / change of mind.
Option D: This could be the real threat if not taken into the account by the Nutritionist before sticking with their conclusion, what if on average a student consumes 4 items per week before or post the school hours?
Option E: Neither strengthens nor weakens.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the nutritionist's conclusion?
Aim : To weaken the Nutritionist's conclusion.
Conclusion : regulating school cafeteria offerings would not significantly impact overall teenage snack consumption.
Option A: Doesn't fall in line with Nutritionist's conclusion.
Option B: Out of scope, Vending machine doesn't have anything to do here.
Option C: Out of scope, can't specifically track about individual's opinon / change of mind.
Option D: This could be the real threat if not taken into the account by the Nutritionist before sticking with their conclusion, what if on average a student consumes 4 items per week before or post the school hours?
Option E: Neither strengthens nor weakens.
