Manufactured food products that contain added sugar are the leading ca

Question

Manufactured food products that contain added sugar are the leading cause for high blood pressure in obese people. So, in the interest of obese people, food manufacturers have come up with a line of obesity-friendly products that contain stevia instead of sugar. Therefore, obese people who frequently avoided manufactured foods can now safely indulge themselves in them without worrying about the negative consequences to their health since____________.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

A. naturally occurring sugar is usually safe to consume in certain regulated quantities.
B. manufacturers adhere strictly to all Food & Drug Administration’s regulations regarding the use of harmful additives and preservatives in their manufactured products containing stevia.
C. apart from improving glucose tolerance, stevia can also lower blood pressure.
D. the effects of obesity and its associated problems far outweigh the potential side-effects of consuming stevia.
E. excessive sugar consumption is known to be a leading cause of obesity and related diseases.

gasoline · Accepted Answer

Dear Lucky 1994

Good day.
I hope you're doing well.
The clue lies in the argument's sentence 'Therefore,  obese people who frequently avoided  manufactured foods can  now safely indulge themselves  in them without worrying about the negative consequences to their health'.

Option C : apart from improving glucose tolerance, stevia can also lower blood pressure.
+1 for for improving consumer base, but?

What if adding Stevia also requires adding certain extra additives, which are required to maintain the products' final taste and texture?
Or, what if adding Stevia reduces the shelf life of the final product , which needs extra chemical preservatives to boost the final product's shelf life?

Now, compare option C with option B. 
Option B is an extension to the information in the passage: It combines the positives of Stevia with some extra information that negates the presence of anything extra in the product that could hamper the health.

Lucky1994 · Answer

Can anyone please suggest why C is not the answer?

Ronnie265 · Answer

According to passage people can safely eat without worrying about the negative consequences if they eat food that contain stevia ,but Option C gives solution to only glucose and blood pressure problems. There can be a lot of negative consequences apart from these two.
..
In option B there is sense of safety if manufactures are strictly regulating all harmful things in their products.

Hope it helps .

GDT · Answer

VeritasKarishma

Can you pls explain why A is not correct?

Thanks in advance!

KarishmaB · Answer

GDT : Option (A) is irrelevant to our argument. We are not talking about sugar and its effects now. The food has no sugar but has stevia. Now we have to see whether this food is safe to consume. 
So (A) is incorrect.

GDT · Answer

VeritasKarishma

The first line talks about manufactured foods containing added sugar which is replaced with stevia in the new range, So isn't it still possible that there may be some naturally occurring sugar?

KarishmaB · Answer

Sure there could be naturally occurring sugar but that is irrelevant to our argument. We don't now whether there is naturally occurring sugar in our food and our argument doesn't talk about it at all. Hence it is irrelevant to us. We are talking about 'added sugar' vs 'stevia' only.

Read the first line:
"Manufactured food products that contain added sugar are the leading cause ..."
We are concerned about added sugar only which is replaced by stevia.

shubham88 · Answer

My take on this. B vs C
let's see. The argument says: Therefore, obese people who frequently avoided manufactured foods can now safely indulge themselves in them without worrying about the negative consequences to their health since________.
the argument shifts its focus from the benefits of Sativa to without worrying about the negative consequences to their health.

This means argument want s to say that there is no negative result of eating these foods, but all we know is that Sative is obese friendly. what about some other things that might cause harm. B does exactly the same thing.

Added sugar is the leading cause of high blood pressure in obese people and Sativa is obese friendly, therefore it does not cause high BP so option C is a direct paraphrase of this sentence and hence it's not the best ans.

Hope it helps

HASTOWINGMAT · Answer

Why option D cannot complete the logic.
If the side effects of stevia outweigh the side-effects of obesity, then stevia cannot be used in the manufactured food products.

singhall · Answer

Hi Experts!
@GMATNinja @egmat I know this is a CR question, but had a doubt on the argument.
"Obese people who frequently avoided manufactured foods can now safely indulge themselves in them"
The usage of themselves and them reffering to two different antecedents is fine in this sentence structure?

The ask is in reference to this official question,
https://gmatclub.com/forum/to-attract-t ... 41811.html

I might have picked some incorrect leanings from the official question, thus, want to be sure.

Thanks
Divya

Rohit_842 · Answer

Option B ("Manufacturers adhere strictly to all Food & Drug Administration’s regulations regarding the use of harmful additives and preservatives in their manufactured products containing stevia") is not the best choice because it does not directly address why obese people can safely indulge in these products. Here's why:

Focus of the Argument
The argument is about the health effects of substituting sugar with stevia in manufactured foods, especially for obese individuals concerned about high blood pressure. To logically complete the argument, the statement must focus on the health benefits or safety of stevia as a sugar substitute.

Issues with B
Irrelevant to the Health Effects: Option B emphasizes compliance with regulations regarding additives and preservatives. While this builds trust in the manufacturing process, it does not provide any information about how the substitution of sugar with stevia specifically benefits obese individuals or addresses high blood pressure.
Not Central to the Argument: The argument is not questioning the safety of additives or preservatives; it’s focused on whether stevia makes these foods healthier for obese individuals.
Why C is Better
Option C ("Apart from improving glucose tolerance, stevia can also lower blood pressure") directly addresses the health concern (high blood pressure) mentioned in the argument. It provides a reason why obese individuals can safely consume these foods, reinforcing the argument that stevia is a beneficial substitute for sugar.

Gigii101 · Answer

I completely agree with  Rohit_842 . 
B does not "Logically" complete the passage if you take the main point of the passage into consideration. 
C is more direct and addresses the main point or authors intent

Even without looking at the options, you can tell that the main point of the passage is sugar in manufactured goods and its effect on the blood pressure of Obese people. So they decided to switch sugar to stevia. now they are telling these people (obese people) that they can safely eat these foods without concerns .... what concerns? its not random, its about high blood pressure concerns isnt it.....so the ______ is to provide premise as to  why they can now safely eat it after the switch to stevia.  Or am i missing something?

GMATNinja   MartyMurray  ...Please I need your expert opinion.

VenkataSai · Answer

The passage clearly mentions that sugar is the main reason for obesity ( not the preservatives or other added elements). So when sugar is replaced with stevia, and asking obese people to enjoy it without worrying about health issues, then we are indirectly telling them that stevia will not bring the health risks that sugar does. Preservatives or other additives are completely out of scope here. There is a chance that sugar is also being manufactured without the addition of harmful substances. So how come this irrelevant option-B is the answer?

guddo · Answer

Manufactured food products that contain added sugar are the leading cause for high blood pressure in obese people. So, in the interest of obese people, food manufacturers have come up with a line of obesity-friendly products that contain stevia instead of sugar. Therefore, obese people who frequently avoided manufactured foods can now safely indulge themselves in them without worrying about the negative consequences to their health since____________. 
 
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The argument says added sugar in manufactured foods causes high blood pressure in obese people. New products replace sugar with stevia, so the argument concludes that obese people can safely eat these manufactured foods.  The missing support  must show that these stevia-based manufactured foods do not contain other harmful ingredients that would create  health risks .

(A) naturally occurring sugar is usually safe to consume in certain regulated quantities.

This does not help. The products contain stevia instead of sugar, so naturally occurring sugar is not the issue.

(B) manufacturers adhere strictly to all Food & Drug Administration’s regulations regarding the use of harmful additives and preservatives in their manufactured products containing stevia.

This is correct. The argument needs to show that the new manufactured foods are not risky in some other way. If manufacturers strictly follow safety regulations on harmful additives and preservatives, then the claim that these products can be consumed safely becomes stronger.

(C) apart from improving glucose tolerance, stevia can also lower blood pressure.

This helps somewhat, but it is not enough. Even if stevia has benefits, the manufactured products could still contain other harmful additives or preservatives.

(D) the effects of obesity and its associated problems far outweigh the potential side-effects of consuming stevia.

This does not show the products are safe. It only compares obesity-related problems with stevia side effects.

(E) excessive sugar consumption is known to be a leading cause of obesity and related diseases.

This does not complete the argument. The issue is whether stevia-based manufactured foods are safe for obese people, not whether sugar contributes to obesity.

Answer: (B)

suntprovident · Answer

I disagree with the solution being B. While manufacturers comply with all additional preservatives and additives, we don't know whether stavia itself would have any additional detrimental impact or even curb the impact of added sugar. Without addressing the additional premise, how can we support the conclusion ?

egmat · Answer

Hi suntprovident,

I get the instinct: the conclusion is sweeping ("safely indulge... without worrying about the negative consequences"), so it feels like we need airtight proof about stevia itself. But watch where the argument actually puts the burden.

The stimulus hands us stevia as the  solution , not as a new suspect. It says added sugar is "the leading cause for high blood pressure in obese people," and the manufacturers create an  "obesity-friendly"  line by swapping sugar for stevia. So the one health threat the argument names - sugar - has already been removed. The argument never raises the possibility that stevia is harmful, so demanding a premise that clears stevia is holding the argument to a bar it didn't set.

So what gap is actually left?  The conclusion is about eating  manufactured foods  safely - and manufactured foods contain more than a sweetener. Even with sugar gone, the additives and preservatives in these products could still pose a risk. That is the real hole, and  B  is the only choice that plugs it: strict FDA compliance on "harmful additives and preservatives" means nothing else in the product is dangerous.

Keep in mind the stem asks for the choice that  most logically completes  the argument - the best available bridge, not a perfect guarantee. C only re-covers blood pressure, which removing sugar already handled; it says nothing about the other contents.

A quick parallel to lock it in:  "A bakery replaced peanut oil with olive oil, so peanut-allergic customers can now eat here safely, since ______." You wouldn't fill the blank by proving olive oil is dangerous - it's the safe swap. You'd fill it with "the kitchen follows strict rules preventing peanut cross-contamination" - i.e., nothing  else  in the food will hurt them. Same move as B here.

Answer: B

egmat · Answer

Hi VenkataSai,

You've read the first premise correctly: added  sugar  is the stated cause of high blood pressure, and swapping in stevia removes that specific cause. Your logic is fine up to that point.

The slip is in how far the  conclusion  actually reaches. Look at its exact words:

"...can now safely indulge themselves in them  without worrying about the negative consequences to their health ."

That is a much bigger claim than "their blood pressure is safe." It says these  manufactured foods  carry  no  health downside at all. Removing sugar only closes the blood-pressure risk - it says nothing about the  other  things that come with manufactured foods (additives, preservatives, etc.). Those aren't outside knowledge you're smuggling in; they're the ordinary contents of any manufactured product, and the conclusion promises safety from  all  health consequences, not just the sugar one.

So there's a gap: sugar is gone, but is the rest of the product safe? That's the exact hole  B  plugs - it confirms the stevia products follow FDA rules on harmful additives and preservatives, so nothing  else  in them threatens health either. That's what earns the word "safely."

On your point that "sugar could also be manufactured without harmful substances" - the products no longer contain added sugar, so that isn't what we need reassurance about; we need reassurance about the food they  are  eating now.

Turn one knob to feel it: 
- If the conclusion had said "...their blood pressure will be fine," then a stevia-and-blood-pressure fact (like C) would be enough.
- But it says "without worrying about  the negative consequences to their health " - broad. Now you must rule out every other risk in the food, which is exactly what B does.

C only re-confirms the one risk we already fixed; the broad conclusion needs the  remaining  risks ruled out, and that's B.

Answer: B

Manufactured food products that contain added sugar are the leading ca

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Manufactured food products that contain added sugar are the leading ca

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards