In the past five years, there has been a marked decline in the

Because it does not say that decline in cookies is because of sugar. It just mentions that sugar is key-component.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

[quote="abansal1805"]In the past five years, there has been a marked decline in the consumption of soft drinks sweetened with sugar. During the same time, there has been increasing publicity about the adverse health effects of weight gain caused by the consumption of sugar-laden drinks. Clearly, the public's awareness of the harmful health effects of weight gained by consuming sugar-laden drinks caused the decline in the consumption of such drinks.

Which of the following statement, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

A. Many consumers have switched to drinking diet soft drinks which are not sweetened with sugar. - This can be inferred from the passage. Can't be strengthener
B. The average person's consumption of soft drinks sweetened with sugar has decreased by 8.2 ounces per day. - This can be inferred from the passage. Can't be strengthener
C. Consuming large quantities of sugar-laden drinks has also been linked to mood swings throughout the day. - mood? out of scope
D. The consumption of packaged cookies which feature sugar as a key ingredient has decreased during the time period in question. - tricky, but we aren't interested in the cookies
E. The price of sugar-laden soft drinks has remained stable for the past five years - Correct. This removes any alternate cause

Dear GMATGuruNY

While OA rules out another cause, can't choices A & D be considered another examples for the effectiveness of publicity that, in turn, drove people away from such drinks? I mean choices A & D work as 'strengtheners' by showing another examples (when A happens then B happens)

Thanks in advance

A: Many consumers have switched to drinking diet soft drinks which are not sweetened with sugar.
This information seems to strengthen the PREMISE that there has been a MARKED DECLINE IN THE CONSUMPTION OF SOFT DRINKS SWEETENED WITH SUGAR.
Any option that attempts to strengthen a premise is WRONG.
A premise is a fact: it cannot be strengthened or weakened.
Eliminate A.

The correct answer must strengthen the CONCLUSION.
Here, the conclusion is that the decline in sugar-drink consumption was due to publicity about the adverse health effects.
To strengthen this conclusion, the correct answer must link the publicity to the decline.
Since A does not indicate WHY people have switched to sugar-free drinks, it has no effect on the conclusion.

D: The consumption of packaged cookies which feature sugar as a key ingredient has decreased during the time period in question.
The argument is very limited in scope.
It is only about the consumption of sugar-laden DRINKS, as in the two main premises:
There has been increasing publicity about the adverse health effects of weight gain caused by the consumption of sugar-laden DRINKS.
There has been a marked decline in the consumption of soft DRINKS sweetened with sugar.
Information about cookies is irrelevant.
Eliminate D.

When I first read the answer choices, I leaned towards knocking E out due to stable prices weakening the conclusion in that if change in demand occurs, prices will change too. Accordingly I saw E to be Weaken rather than Strengthen.

My question: are the multiple possibilities to be inferred a signal of a badly written question or is it a testable element which is placed on purpose to confuse. I???m personally leaning towards the first possibility mainly because I???m expecting the GMAT not to require understanding of supply n demand forces.

Thanks,
Abed

Hi Abed.

I tend to agree with your assessment that the fact that the price of sugar-laden drinks has not decreased could indicate that demand has not decreased. However, the truth is that the passage does make clear that the consumption of such drinks has decreased. So, if we combine the information from the passage, that consumption has decreased, with the information from the answer choice, that the price has remained stable, we have support for the conclusion that demand did decrease.

Of course, choice (E) is a way to eliminate the possibility that the decrease in consumption of sugar-laden drinks is due to price increases. Thus, by directly stating what is unstated in the passage, that consumption of sugar-laden drinks did not decrease because of a price increase, E adds support to the conclusion.

Regarding whether the GMAT assumes that test-takers understand the basics of the supply and demand, it does. So a test-taker may have to understand relationships between changes in supply or demand and changes in price or quantity in order to correctly answer certain Critical Reasoning questions. That said, the analysis of such forces needed for answering Critical Reasoning questions is generally rather straightforward, and probably the implications of choice (E) that you picked up on involve thinking about market forces slightly more sophisticated than the thinking about such forces that the GMAT would expect test-takers to bring to bear when answering Critical Reasoning questions.

Keeping all the highlighted points in my mind We can approach the options.

Which of the following statement, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

A. Many consumers have switched to drinking diet soft drinks which are not sweetened with sugar. - It does help strengthen the awareness part but it doesn't strengthen why sales of sugar drinks declined.
B. The average person's consumption of soft drinks sweetened with sugar has decreased by 8.2 ounces per day. - Irrelevant
C. Consuming large quantities of sugar-laden drinks has also been linked to mood swings throughout the day. - Irrelevant
D. The consumption of packaged cookies which feature sugar as a key ingredient has decreased during the time period in question. I almost picked this one. But You know we are not talking about cookies. I get that. But again it strengthens the awareness part and not the declining sales part.
E. The price of sugar-laden soft drinks has remained stable for the past five years. - If price has remained constant, then the only other reason (highlighted by the argument) will be awareness. And we are now talking about both Sales and sugar drinks. So best out of the lot.

jennpt @MartyMurray generis

IMO, choice A strengthens te conclusion

we are given a causal relation: health awareness --> decrease in sugary drinks
now what if people stopped drinking it for some other reason? maybe becasue of some non mentioned entity in those drinks?

when we say they still go for the diet drinks arent we discarding the possibility that the decrrease in consumption is not beacsaue of some other issue with those drinks...

please explain

In the past five years, there has been a marked decline in the consumption of soft drinks sweetened with sugar. During the same time, there has been increasing publicity about the adverse health effects of weight gain caused by the consumption of sugar-laden drinks. Clearly, the public's awareness of the harmful health effects of weight gained by consuming sugar-laden drinks caused the decline in the consumption of such drinks.

Which of the following statement, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

A. Many consumers have switched to drinking diet soft drinks which are not sweetened with sugar. - INCORRECT. Eliminated because of the word 'many' which may go either ways.
B. The average person's consumption of soft drinks sweetened with sugar has decreased by 8.2 ounces per day. - INCORRECT. May be a result but it not enough of a reason to choose it as an answer.
C. Consuming large quantities of sugar-laden drinks has also been linked to mood swings throughout the day. - INCORRECT. Irrelevant.
D. The consumption of packaged cookies which feature sugar as a key ingredient has decreased during the time period in question.
E. The price of sugar-laden soft drinks has remained stable for the past five years.

This is some question.
I picked D for it gives another reason why awareness is responsible for decline in consumption of another sugary food. E, i just eliminated for it doesn't look like to be the answer. Now, I understand why its D is wrong. It gives a parallel reasoning for another sugary food but not soft drinks. It could have been an answer for analogy type of questions but not here.
Also, didn't choose rather not paid attention because it looks like it may go in either direction upon taking opposite of what is mentioned presently. One, that what if it may have increased and second what if it may have decreased. Anyway, I got too carried away by D and missed E for it being covered under too naive a veil.

IMO E is a very far-fetched assumption to support it as strengthening the argument. It is merely suggesting that price was not a constraint for people to reduce consumption.

On the contrary, A - Many consumers have switched to drinking diet soft drinks which are not sweetened with sugar - clearly brings out those who were having sweetened drinks have switched. Switched to non sweetened, and they switched due to negative publicity.

It ideally supports the conclusion - Clearly, the public's awareness of the harmful health effects of weight gained by consuming sugar-laden drinks caused the decline in the consumption of such drinks.

Given between A & E, I would prefer A.