Bunuel
Bunuel
Health Advocate's Argument: The implementation of mandatory calorie counts on all restaurant menus is widely seen as an effective measure to combat obesity. Studies have shown that when calorie information is readily available, people choose healthier options. Therefore, a health official proposes that all restaurants should be required to display calorie counts, aiming to reduce the national obesity rate within 10 years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?
(A) Many restaurants that voluntarily provide calorie counts have seen a decrease in customers, indicating potential revenue losses for businesses.
(B) Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of calorie counts have primarily focused on fast food restaurants, which only represent a portion of the restaurant industry.
(C) Restaurants that have already implemented calorie counts report difficulties in accurately estimating the calorie content for every dish, leading to frequent revisions.
(D) Foods that are high in calories are often the most affordable options, making them more appealing despite calorie count displays.
(E) Many foods that do not have high-calorie counts are still unhealthy because of high salt or sugar content, which is not necessarily reflected in calorie counts alone.
GMAT Club Official Explanation:
Correct Answer: B. Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of calorie counts have primarily focused on fast food restaurants, which only represent a portion of the restaurant industry.
Explanation: This choice questions the supporting evidence used in the advocate's argument. By highlighting that the positive studies on calorie counts were focused only on fast food restaurants, it calls into question whether the same results would apply across the broader restaurant industry, including fine dining, casual dining, and other types of eateries that may have different customer demographics and dining habits.
(A) Many restaurants that voluntarily provide calorie counts have seen a decrease in customers, indicating potential revenue losses for businesses.Losing revenue is bad for business and restaurants but our concern is with obesity and calorie information influencing decisions, so this statement is irrelevant to the argument. As all restaurants will be required to post calorie information, this answer choice would not impact the argument much. If anything, it supports and strengthens the advocate's argument. Eliminate.
(C) Restaurants that have already implemented calorie counts report difficulties in accurately estimating the calorie content for every dish, leading to frequent revisions.We are not concerned that the restaurants have a hard time revising and updating their menus - yes, it would lead to higher costs and be bad for business but does not weaken the argument that it would be good for obesity and consumers. So, again irrelevant. Eliminate.
(D) Foods that are high in calories are often the most affordable options, making them more appealing despite calorie count displays.If this answer choice said that 80% of customers are price-sensitive, then it would be a strong contender, but as is, it is not strong enough to weaken the argument enough.
(E) Many foods that do not have high-calorie counts are still unhealthy because of high salt or sugar content, which is not necessarily reflected in calorie counts alone.Our argument is obesity. Unhealthy and obesity are not exactly the same thing. Eliminate.
KarishmaB Bunuel bb chetan2u Hello everyone. So I have a doubt here.
I marked D and eliminated B.
Reason to eliminate B was they only mentioned that
1) fastfood industry represents a portion. Now we do not know what kind of portion(it does not inherently mean large or small). Small portion then yes this is the answer. Large portion, then the study is still relevant.
2) Just assuming that the portion is small(this is JUST assumption to begin with), what if 90% of the people like to visit these restaurants, making the study still relevant.
Reason for choosing D.
1) That clearly attacks the conclusion.
Now In the OA, the reason is stated that if it was mentioned that "80% of customers are price-sensitive" then it would be a contender. Now as you can see option D is in the form of statement. I do not feel that the reason for it's elimination is correct. I can similarly add a condition in option number B that
"10% of the total studies demonstrating the effectiveness of calorie counts have primarily focused on fast food restaurants, which only represent a portion of the restaurant industry."
OR "Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of calorie counts have primarily focused on fast food restaurants, which only represent a 5% portion of the restaurant industry."
Adding just percentage to the statements in this case I feel is not correct way for elimination. AND I feel that I had to assume enough to eliminate option number B.
Please tell me if I am missing on something here?