In a recent advertisement, a major cereal company contended that the b

The correct answer is option (B).

Let us first analyze the passage.

1. Claim of the cereal company:

(Better the education level of people) , (higher likelihood that they ate oatmeal when they were children).

Essentially, the company wants us to believe that oatmeal is beneficial for people. The mechanism: if you had oatmeal as a child, you are somehow set up for a better education than someone who did not have oatmeal.

2. Evidence for the above claim: Random National survey of college graduates

4/5 (80%) of college graduates say that they ate oatmeal at least once a week when they were kids.

What we need to do is strengthen the claim made by the cereal company.

Logic:
The author uses the evidence about college graduates. 4/5 i.e. 80% of them ate oatmeal when they were kids to justify his claim. But what if the same or more proportion of people who did not make it to college also had oatmeal as a child? Then the company's claim would break down.

i.e. what if 4/5 or higher (>=80%) of people who did not make it to college also ate oatmeal when they were young? then can the company still claim that eating oatmeal was beneficial in the manner that it somehow helped one get a better education? if 90% of people who did not make it to college also ate oatmeal, it would weaken our belief that oatmeal was beneficial the way it is claimed.

So, the implicit assumption made by the author is that: The proportion of people who did not make it to college but ate oatmeal when they were younger is less than 4/5 (<80%). Any option choice that gives evidence to back up this assumption is a strong strengthener for us.

Now, let us look at the option choices:

(A) Four-fifths of all current college graduates eat oatmeal regularly.

Irrelevant. The logic of the argument is about whether these graduates ate oatmeal when they were children. Whether they still eat it is irrelevant to the claim we need to strengthen.

(B) Fewer than four-fifths of those without a college degree ate oatmeal regularly when they were children.

This is exactly what we arrived at. If this statement is true, then it definitely strengthens our belief in the claim. For example, 80% (4/5) of people who made it to college took oatmeal as kids, while only 40% of people who did not make it to college took oatmeal as kids. This will strengthen our belief that oatmeal is beneficial in some manner to help people get a better education.

(C) Among people who have additional education beyond college, four-fifths ate oatmeal regularly when they were children.

Interesting choice. At best, I would consider this a weak strengthener. In our logic, we arrived at an assumption about a group of people not talked about in the passage - people who did not make it to college. This option provides information about yet another group - those who went on and got additional education. The statement says that even in this group, 4/5 (80%) of the people ate oatmeal when they were kids. It does strengthen the argument somewhat as per me. But the problem of the other group remains. Till we can be sure that the group that did not make it to college had less than 4/5 (80%), we cannot definitely say that the claim is true, even if this option was true.

So, it seems to be a weak strengthener at best. Option B is a much stronger strengthener and hence must be the correct choice.

(D) More than four-fifths of the population at large—college graduates and nongraduates combined—ate oatmeal regularly when they were children.

This option is also interesting. We need to analyse if this provides any evidence of our assumption/or is in line with our assumption, before we can reject this. if our assumption can be inferred based on this option, then this would also be a correct answer choice.

i.e. can we infer from this option that <4/5 of the people who did not make it to college (i.e. non-graduates) also ate oatmeal as kids?

But, clearly that need not be the case. For example: -

Sample Data
1. Total Population - 100
2. Ate oatmeal - 90 (>4/5)
3. Graduates = 20
4. Non Graduates = 80
5. Graduates who ate oatmeal = 4/5*20 = 16
6. Non graduates who ate oatmeal = 90-16 = 74
7. Non Graduates who ate oatmeal % = 74/80 >90% (i.e. >4/5)

Here, we can see that 1) >4/5 of total population (90/100) ate oatmeal. 2) 4/5 (16/20) of college graduates ate oatmeal. 3. >90% (74/80) of non graduates also ate oatmeal. We can therefore see that we cannot infer out assumption from option D.

So, option D also does not strengthen the company's claim in anyway.

(E) Those college graduates who did not eat oatmeal regularly when they were children did eat oatmeal on an occasional basis.

Irrelevant. It does not matter whether oatmeal was eaten frequently or occasionally, it has nothing to do with our claim, which is only about whether oatmeal was eaten or not.

Cheers!

Less than 80% (4/5th) could still mean 70% or 75%. So even then the majority of people who did not go to the college ate oatmeal. It still weakens.

ThatDudeKnows

Namangupta1997

If the college-educated crowd were 50%, you'd be a-okay! But we aren't asked whether there is a majority or a minority; we are asked whether it is more or less than the college-educated crowd. The college-educated crowd is 80%. Is the non-college-educated crowd more than 80% or less than 80%? 50% isn't our threshold; 80% is.

Defender type question. I marked C as the answer choice (C and E were the contenders for the supporting answer) but B correctly plugs the gap in terms of discrediting the possible correlation between uneducated people, which would have broken the causal relationship between oatmeal and ending up educated.

Agree with the explanation.

for answer B: If approximately 80% of non college goers and approximately 80% of college goers both had taken oatmeal in their childhood then how will it strengthen the claim of the company that eating oatmeal is beneficial?

Can somebody please explain as I think it undermines the company's claim.

The problem with your logic(as i understand it) is that it is based on Y/N or 1/0 logic. Two ways you can think of how this question is working:
1. Test takers get stuck when they try to identify with absoluteness as basis. For this reason B is almost unlikely to strike anyone being the right answer on first read.
2. Slight extension of 1st point. It is testing the minor strength(=80%) of college graduates of all those surveyed reported having eaten oatmeal at least once a week when they were young OVER weaker strength(<80%) of those without a college degree ate oatmeal regularly when they were children.
3. Least likely one it that It is about relativeness among choices that gives B an advantage.

HTHs.

Ankitgoel

Conclusion: educated people are more likely to have eaten oatmeal as a kid.
Premise: 80% of college-educated people ate oatmeal as a kid.

We know nothing about the percentage of non-college-educated people who ate oatmeal. What if it is 0%? That would strengthen, right? What if it's 40%? 60%, 70%, 75%, 79%? Where is the threshold for strengthening (hint: your threshold doesn't matter, only the argument's threshold matters)? Note that the conclusion doesn't say "a lot more." It just says "more." 80% vs 0%? That works! 80% vs 79%? Technically, that works, too!

"Approximately" in your explanation doesn't cut it. If your employer pays you "approximately" 100% of your salary,...you see where this is going.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.