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. This does not say that they will severely unerstimate and put a cheeseburger as lower calories than salad. This means that yes, there will be some inaccuracies but they would be fixed with revisions and potentially may over or under-estimate the calorie count. So, it is hard to make good use of this information alone. 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.
I agree with your explanation for statement E. In the passage it self it reads that "studies have shown that when calorie information is readily available, people choose healthier options". Which doesnt directly contribute to the conclusion that the step will help curb obesity. Statement E directly hits on the conclusion of the stuy used to evaluate thus cant we say that it eventually hurts any conclusion drwan based on the flawed theory?