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 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 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 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.
11 Sep 2023, 09:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
82% (02:14) correct
18%
(02:30)
wrong
based on 306
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to
cause cancer.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Of the following, which one, if true, is the logically strongest counter the legislator can make to the commentator’s argument?
(A) The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
(B) Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
(C) The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
(D) For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
(E) All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
cause cancer.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Of the following, which one, if true, is the logically strongest counter the legislator can make to the commentator’s argument?
(A) The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
(B) Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
(C) The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
(D) For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
(E) All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
14 Sep 2023, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
The conclusion of the commentator's argument is the following:
An absolute prohibition is excessive ... we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero
The basis for that conclusion is the following:
we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer
The correct answer will show that, even though the premise is true, the commentator's strategy may not make sense.
(A) The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
This choice is tricky, but notice that it doesn't mean that the strategy won't work. It just means that, to work, the strategy must involve setting maximum acceptable levels for problematic chemicals below those at which they cause cancer in children.
Eliminate.
(B) Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
This choice indicates that the commentator's plan may not work.
After all, if small amounts of additives can together cause cancer even if each amount would not cause cancer alone, then limiting levels of each additive to "somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero" may not work since those levels may be sufficient for additives to cause cancer together.
Keep.
(C) The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
The argument is about whether prohibition of additives, i.e., chemicals added to foods, is necessary. How to handle naturally occurring cancer-causing substances is a different matter.
Eliminate.
(D) For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
This choice indicates that, if the commentator's strategy is used, the use of certain food additives may not make sense. That information doesn't mean that the strategy doesn't make sense though.
Eliminate.
(E) All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
The fact that additives have substitutes makes no difference in the effectiveness of the commentator's strategy. Foods will or will not be safe if the strategy is used regardless of whether there are substitutes for the additives.
The correct answer is (B).
An absolute prohibition is excessive ... we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero
The basis for that conclusion is the following:
we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer
The correct answer will show that, even though the premise is true, the commentator's strategy may not make sense.
(A) The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
This choice is tricky, but notice that it doesn't mean that the strategy won't work. It just means that, to work, the strategy must involve setting maximum acceptable levels for problematic chemicals below those at which they cause cancer in children.
Eliminate.
(B) Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
This choice indicates that the commentator's plan may not work.
After all, if small amounts of additives can together cause cancer even if each amount would not cause cancer alone, then limiting levels of each additive to "somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero" may not work since those levels may be sufficient for additives to cause cancer together.
Keep.
(C) The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
The argument is about whether prohibition of additives, i.e., chemicals added to foods, is necessary. How to handle naturally occurring cancer-causing substances is a different matter.
Eliminate.
(D) For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
This choice indicates that, if the commentator's strategy is used, the use of certain food additives may not make sense. That information doesn't mean that the strategy doesn't make sense though.
Eliminate.
(E) All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
The fact that additives have substitutes makes no difference in the effectiveness of the commentator's strategy. Foods will or will not be safe if the strategy is used regardless of whether there are substitutes for the additives.
The correct answer is (B).
12 Jan 2024, 23:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to cause cancer.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Of the following, which one, if true, is the logically strongest counter the legislator can make to the commentator’s argument?
(A) The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults. - WRONG. For adults it works still though not for the children. Weakens somewhat but it weak in doing so.
(B) Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not. - CORRECT. Rule wise things might be looking to work but it may not be so the case when a combination of the those substances are consumed.
(C) The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances. - WRONG. The passage is about deliberate addition only and not about naturally ones. The logic still holds for deliberately added additives.
(D) For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit. - WRONG. Exception, though weakens the passage, but it does not totally dislodges the logic presented in the passage. The logic still holds, may be for most of the additives. Weak weakener.
(E) All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place. - WRONG. Goes in another direction that is not relevant to the passage.
Answer B.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Of the following, which one, if true, is the logically strongest counter the legislator can make to the commentator’s argument?
(A) The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults. - WRONG. For adults it works still though not for the children. Weakens somewhat but it weak in doing so.
(B) Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not. - CORRECT. Rule wise things might be looking to work but it may not be so the case when a combination of the those substances are consumed.
(C) The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances. - WRONG. The passage is about deliberate addition only and not about naturally ones. The logic still holds for deliberately added additives.
(D) For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit. - WRONG. Exception, though weakens the passage, but it does not totally dislodges the logic presented in the passage. The logic still holds, may be for most of the additives. Weak weakener.
(E) All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place. - WRONG. Goes in another direction that is not relevant to the passage.
Answer B.
