Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause ser

Passage Analysis
Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning.

Salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. So, when meat from chickens contaminated with these bacteria is consumed, it can lead to serious food poisoning.

Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties.

Chili peppers which have a hot flavor owe it capsaicin, a chemical that has antibacterial properties.

Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.

Chickens do not have the taste receptors that would help them feel the hot flavor of capsaicin. They readily eat feed that is mixed with capsaicin.

When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.

It was found that when chickens were given capsaicin mixed feed, comparatively very few of them showed salmonella contamination.

(Now the passage itself does not reveal the conclusion. For that we need to analyze the question stem.)

question stem analysis

In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?

Which of the options would be most helpful in deciding that if feed mixed with capsaicin is given to the chicken, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Therefore:
Conclusion:
If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to the chicken, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

pre-thinking
Falsification question

In what scenario will capsaicin laced feed not be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale?
Given that →Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning
→capsaicin, a chemical that has antibacterial properties.
→Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
→when chickens were given capsaicin mixed feed, comparatively very few of them showed salmonella contamination

Thought Process

Raising chicken for retail sale means selling them for consumption purpose. Obviously, salmonella infected chicken would be a retail failure as it could lead to serious food poisoning. It has been observed that mixing their feed with capsaicin, which has antibacterial properties, has led to a huge reduction in salmonella infection in chicken. And it is believed that this could be useful when raising chicken for retail sale.

Falsification condition#1

What if the chicken meat is rendered inedible when the chicken is raised on feed laced with capsaicin?

Say the capsaicin laced feed is successful in eliminating salmonella. But this process somehow changes the meat taste, makes it tasteless or bitter or acidic, etc. Then we won’t have buyers for such meat. The goal is to raise Salmonella free chicken for retail sale. Hence, any changes that make the chicken unfit for the same could falsify the conclusion.

Assumption#1

The feed laced with capsaicin in no way distracts from the taste of chicken meat or in other words does not cause any adverse changes in the taste of the chicken meat.

Falsification Condition #2

What if most Chickens are infected with Salmonella bacteria relatively early on in their life cycle, before they start eating food that is laced with bacteria?

In that case, giving capsaicin laced feed to the chicken will not work on the already salmonella laced chicken. And our plans of raising salmonella free chicken for retail sail will go up into thin air.

Assumption #2

The chicken which are to be fed with the capsaicin laced feed are not already infected with salmonella.


Answer Choices

Option A

This is absolutely in line with our pre-thinking assumption#1. We really do not need to put this through the variance test because we can clearly see that if it does affect the taste then no one will buy the chicken and retail sale of such chickens will be out of question.

Option B

This is irrelevant to our discussion. We are only concerned with the effect of capsaicin laced feed on chicken and whether they are able to resist salmonella contamination thereafter.
Hence, this is not the correct choice.

Option C

Once again, the findings of this question would not help us in proving the effectiveness of the idea of raising capsaicin fed chicken for retail sale.
Hence, this is not the correct choice.

Option D


This comes into play after the chicken already contaminated with salmonella is sold. We are looking at a picture where we will sell salmonella free chicken and people will buy it. This in fact rules out the necessity of raising salmonella free chicken.
Hence, this choice is incorrect.

Option E

We need capsaicin. Does it matter from where? No. As long as capsaicin helps in raising salmonella free chicken for retail sale, it is enough.
Hence, incorrect choice.

hi,
the Q has already taken that these are salmonella free chickens, so Choice B doesn't help us at all..

Now given that the chickens are salmonella-free chicken and so they have been eating CAPSAICIN, and also the retail sale is to be increased..

Retail sale would depend on Hygiene, cost and taste..
In A, we are given about taste so its OK..

May be a CHOICE talking of increase in PRICE due to use of a particular diet-- couold be also a reason if a part of choices..

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties. Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin. When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.

In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat -Correct. If the taste of meat changes then the meat will not sell as it used to
(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans -human poisoning is out of scope
(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat -other meat are out of scope
(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning -this just gives an alternate to stop the spread of salmonella. out of scope
(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers -out of scope

In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?

This is an evaluate question and we shd ask the choice with "yes" and "No" which has to strengthen the argument and weaken the argument.


(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat.
Yes, the taste of meat changes then the meat will not sell.
No, then it will sell

correct

(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans - out of scope


(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat - out of scope

(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning -
Yes, cooking prevents food poisoning.
No, cooking doesn't prevent poisoning.

Irrelevant to the question asked.

(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers - out of scope

Hi Mike,

In option D- if the appropriate cooking prevents food from contamination then we will not use capsaicin and if it can't prevent then we will use capsacin. in this case we can evaluate whether we can use capsaicin free chicken for retail. Please help me understand where I faltered.

Hi,

If you are looking for this query now also - The point is that here the conclusion is in Q.S ( question stem) and it talks about Chicken who are salmonella free ( meaning the one who already ate capsaicin) . So this option does not help us evaluate whether the chickens who ate capsaicin would be good.

Option A is best of lot, but it rests on assumption that the taste would become bad. What if it improves? Then it strengthens my belief, but rest are not that good so we select option A.

Regards,
Rishav

I'm not convinced with why D is not the answer. Can anyone help please? GMATNinja

We are trying to figure out whether a specific feed would help raise chicken for retail purposes.
A special type of feed would most definitely cost more, so it would only be used if it is absolutely essential. According to the passage meat CAN cause serious illness and capsaisin MIGHT help kill the bacteria. So even if we use capsaisin feed there is no guarantee that it would work. So why would we use a special feed?

You can say that I am making an assumption that the special feed will cost more, it is nowhere explicitly expressed in the passage. Fair enough, but if you are selecting option A you are also making an assumption that people will not compromise taste of the meat. What if I say people are only worried about the nutritional benefits of the meat, the taste does not matter at all?

Now D suggests if there is a way of cooking chicken, so that the bacteria is killed anyways. Well there you have it. We go for standard feed. No need for the fancy capsaisin feed.

Going down this path will only create more doubt, because anyone can whip up "what if" interpretations for any answer choice, and consequently never end up with a confident answer. The way to resolve your doubt is to return to the question and be precise about what information we'll need to answer it:

• We weren't asked which answer choice proves that capsaicin-laced feed is useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.
• We weren't asked which answer choice is most helpful in determining whether the feed is necessary or not for consumers to prevent food poisoning.
• We were asked which answer choice is most helpful in determining whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

These are three different inquiries that send us looking for different data to resolve them.

It could very well be that the feed is extremely useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, while simultaneously being totally unnecessary for consumers to prevent food poisoning via chicken. Likewise, data that tells us how consumers can prevent food poisoning could tell us absolutely nothing about the impact of capsaicin-laced feed.

That's why we eliminate choice (D). It says absolutely nothing about the feed and its impact on raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Choice (A), on the other hand, directly addresses how the feed could impact raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, by providing new data about a potential side-effect of feeding capsaicin to chickens.

As you've pointed out, and as I've written in my prior explanation, choice (A) does NOT give us a ton of data one way or the other. We still don't know whether the effect on taste is negative, we don't know whether consumers care about the effect on taste, and we don't know whether consumer care about taste more or less than risk of food poisoning.

But choice (A) does give us more data than we started with to answer the question. And most importantly, choice (A) provides the right TYPE of data for knowing whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

That's why (A) is a much better choice than (D), even if (A) doesn't do that much to improve the argument for using capsaicin-laced feed.

I hope this helps clarify!

Understanding the passage

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning.
• When meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria is consumed, it can lead to severe food poisoning.
Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties.
• Capsaicin is a chemical present in chili peppers. It is what gives chili peppers their hot flavor.
• Capsaicin has antibacterial properties.
Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
• Chickens do not have the taste receptors that would help them feel the hot flavor of capsaicin.
• Chickens readily consume feed that is mixed with capsaicin.
When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.
• Chickens are given capsaicin mixed feed so that the antibacterial properties of capsaicin will eliminate the salmonella bacteria.
• When chickens were fed feed mixed with capsaicin and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, it was found that very few of these chickens were contaminated with salmonella.
Since there is no conclusion in the passage, we will analyze the question stem to find the conclusion.

Question: In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?
The question asks us to pick the options that will help us decide if feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens; it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Conclusion: If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Scenario

In what scenario - If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens, it will NOT be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Given that:
(i) Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause severe food poisoning.
(ii) Capsaicin is a chemical that has antibacterial properties.
(iii) Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
(iv) Among the chickens that consumed feed laced with capsaicin, very few of them showed salmonella contamination.

Thought Process

Chickens with salmonella contamination would not sell because consuming contaminated chicken meat will lead to severe food poisoning. It has been observed that feed mixed with capsaicin, which has antibacterial properties, when given to /chickens, resulted in a reduction in the number of chickens with salmonella contamination. Therefore, the author concludes that raising salmonella-free chickens for sale will be useful.

Falsification condition 1: What if the chicken meat becomes inedible when chickens are raised on feed laced with capsaicin?
In this scenario, if capsaicin in the chicken feed renders the meat inedible, then people who consume chicken meat will not buy salmonella-free chicken, and the retail sale will not increase.
This scenario would break the author's conclusion.

Assumption 1: Feed laced with capsaicin does not alter or degrade the taste of the chicken meat.

Falsification condition 2: What if chickens are already infected with salmonella before feed laced with capsaicin is given to them?
If chickens were contaminated before the feed laced with capsaicin was given to them, then the chickens will not be salmonella free and would not increase the retail sale. Thus, the author's conclusion will break.

Assumption 2: Chickens, which are given feed laced with capsaicin, are not already infected with salmonella.

Answer choice analyses

(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat CORRECT
• This option is directly in line with our pre-thinking assumption 1.
• Variance test
o Yes - feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat.
o This case weakens our belief in the conclusion.
o No - feeding capsaicin to chickens does not affect the taste of their meat.
o This case strengthens our belief in the conclusion.


(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans INCORRECT
• This option is irrelevant because the passage is concerned with the effects of capsaicin laced feed on chicken and whether the chickens become salmonella free or not.


(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat INCORRECT
• This information will not affect the conclusion. Therefore, this choice is also irrelevant.


(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning INCORRECT

• The passage talks about raising salmonella-free chickens that would be useful for the retail sale of chicken. The cooking of chicken will come after people buy chicken, so this information is out of scope.

(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers INCORRECT
• The passage talks about capsaicin that is used for lacing chicken feed. The passage does not specify that capsaicin from chili peppers can only be used to lace chicken feed. Thus, the source of capsaicin is not relevant.

Understanding the passage

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning.

• When meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria is consumed, it can lead to severe food poisoning.

Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties.

• Capsaicin is a chemical present in chili peppers. It is what gives chili peppers their hot flavor.
• Capsaicin has antibacterial properties.

Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.

• Chickens do not have the taste receptors that would help them feel the hot flavor of capsaicin.
• Chickens readily consume feed that is mixed with capsaicin.

When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.

• Chickens are given capsaicin mixed feed so that the antibacterial properties of capsaicin will eliminate the salmonella bacteria.
• When chickens were fed feed mixed with capsaicin and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, it was found that very few of these chickens were contaminated with salmonella.

Since there is no conclusion in the passage, we will analyze the question stem to find the conclusion.

Question: In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?
The question asks us to pick the options that will help us decide if feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens; it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Conclusion: If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Scenario

In what scenario - If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens, it will NOT be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Given that:
(i) Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause severe food poisoning.
(ii) Capsaicin is a chemical that has antibacterial properties.
(iii) Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
(iv) Among the chickens that consumed feed laced with capsaicin, very few of them showed salmonella contamination.

Thought Process

Chickens with salmonella contamination would not sell because consuming contaminated chicken meat will lead to severe food poisoning. It has been observed that feed mixed with capsaicin, which has antibacterial properties, when given to /chickens, resulted in a reduction in the number of chickens with salmonella contamination. Therefore, the author concludes that raising salmonella-free chickens for sale will be useful.

Falsification condition 1: What if the chicken meat becomes inedible when chickens are raised on feed laced with capsaicin?
In this scenario, if capsaicin in the chicken feed renders the meat inedible, then people who consume chicken meat will not buy salmonella-free chicken, and the retail sale will not increase.
This scenario would break the author's conclusion.

Assumption 1: Feed laced with capsaicin does not alter or degrade the taste of the chicken meat.

Falsification condition 2: What if chickens are already infected with salmonella before feed laced with capsaicin is given to them?
If chickens were contaminated before the feed laced with capsaicin was given to them, then the chickens will not be salmonella free and would not increase the retail sale. Thus, the author's conclusion will break.

Assumption 2: Chickens, which are given feed laced with capsaicin, are not already infected with salmonella.

Answer choice analyses

(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat CORRECT
• This option is directly in line with our pre-thinking assumption 1.
• Variance test
o Yes - feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat.
o This case weakens our belief in the conclusion.
o No - feeding capsaicin to chickens does not affect the taste of their meat.
o This case strengthens our belief in the conclusion.


(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans INCORRECT
• This option is irrelevant because the passage is concerned with the effects of capsaicin laced feed on chicken and whether the chickens become salmonella free or not.


(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat INCORRECT
• This information will not affect the conclusion. Therefore, this choice is also irrelevant.


(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning INCORRECT

• The passage talks about raising salmonella-free chickens that would be useful for the retail sale of chicken. The cooking of chicken will come after people buy chicken, so this information is out of scope.

(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers INCORRECT
• The passage talks about capsaicin that is used for lacing chicken feed. The passage does not specify that capsaicin from chili peppers can only be used to lace chicken feed. Thus, the source of capsaicin is not relevant.

The stimulus is related to food poisoning and how to prevent it. I picked incorrect answer option D even though I had genuine doubts.

Before moving other answer options, I stopped for a moment on Answer Choice A. But then, I thought there is a disconnect between stimulus and the answer choice as the taste of meat was not mentioned in the stimulus and I might be assuming too much. This led me to reject answer choice A.

My question is - what if people are not at all bothered with taste? Also, it makes sense to prioritise bacterial resistance over taste, if there is no other way out. Are not we assuming a bit too much with answer option A?

Please help GMATNinja!!

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties. Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin. When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.

In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat
-> The argument is asking the feed would be useful in raising chicken for retail sale. Thus the purpose of the given action is not just eliminating salmonella bacteria but also making them in a good shape for the retail market. If the given method is expected to effect the taste of the meat, the chicken meat might not be appropriate for raising its retail sale.

B. Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans
-> Irrelevant. The argument is about making chickens eat capsaicin not about humans.

C. Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat
-> Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination has nothing to do with the argument.

D. Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning
-> Appropriate cooking is not relevant to the given topic. Moreover, we always have to be cautious of extreme words such as 'always'.

E. Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers
-> Chili pepper is a given example and does not have to be the only case to have capsaicin.

Imagine that you are a chicken farmer who raises chicken for retail sale, as specified in the question. Someone tells you that if you lace chicken feed with capsaicin, the chickens will be less likely to become contaminated with salmonella. Sounds great, right?

But wait... capsaicin is the thing that gives chili peppers their hot flavor. Wouldn't you worry about whether this chemical will impact the taste of the chicken that you're trying to sell?

Sure, there's no guarantee that people would dislike the chicken, even if it tasted different. And you're right, maybe reducing salmonella is still important! But before you start feeding all of your chickens capsaicin, it would be helpful to know whether the flavor of the product will change, so you can anticipate how it would impact your sales.

While knowing the answer to (A) might not completely change your mind, it would certainly weigh into your decision about whether to feed your chickens capsaicin. So, (A) is still a helpful question to answer.

(A) is the correct answer choice. Mmm... spicy chicken.

I hope that helps!

Hello experts,
first of all argument talked all about chickens with Salmonella virus-
The question is- whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale
1. In A- Isn't it important that even for retail sale, chickens should be free of salmonella.
this choice tells only about taste, wheather chikens are free of bacteria, nobody knows.
and it is a part of question stem.

2.for a second, for a yes/ No answer- if yes, taste is affected- if taste becomes better then its usuefull. if taste is bad its not useful.

if the answer is NO- the taste is not useful.
even for a Yes, we have two choices!

3. for choice B, If capsicum reduces the risk of the bacteria poisonin. then isn't it ok to sell the chicken for retail? That is basic, taste is secondary.

Another user asked the same question about (A), which we addressed in this post -- check it out and let us know if you have any further questions.

Take another look at the exact wording of (B):
(B) talks about what happens when humans eat capsaicin. That doesn't play into the argument at all, which hinges on what happens when chickens eat capsaicin.

Eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

I think A or D could be correct depending on what you assume in the background... What is wrong with what I wrote below?

For A: If feeding capsaicin has no impact on taste, then sure, makes sense to proceed, because the product solves one problem (less likely to make you ill) without changing the taste. But if feeding capsaicin does impact taste, then the assumption we need to make for this to be the correct answer is that a change in taste is a bad thing (which I think is a bit of a leap). The change in taste could also be a good thing (e.g. some people like this new chicken maybe because it is spicy)... So a change in taste doesn't help us determine whether the demand for the special chicken will be high or low.

For D: If cooking doesn't always prevent food poisoning, then makes sense to proceed, because the product solves one problem (less likely to make you ill) - and could be marketed as such. But if cooking chicken always prevents you from getting food poisoning from eating chicken, then if we make the fairly reasonable assumption that people cook chicken properly before they eat it (to prevent themselves from getting ill), then we could deduce that the new product is not required and so people have no reason to buy it... If we don't make this assumption - i.e. maybe people always cook chicken properly or maybe they don't - then knowing the fact that cooking chicken prevents food poisoning doesn't help us determine how high/low the demand will be for the special chicken which is less likely to make you ill if not cooked properly. Hence it seems like D just as good/bad as A is. I guess another assumption I made for D is that taste is irrelevant. So maybe that's why A is better.

Help!

(Side note: the GMAT is making me question whether every question I write is correct English or not.. which is slowly driving me insane)

stm579


The trouble with D is that it doesn't address the conclusion at hand, but rather, another concern one might reasonably have. This is a common pattern in trap answers.

Our job is to assess this plan in terms of its help in raising salmonella-free chickens for sale. To do this, we do not need to consider whether that goal is a worthy one. Similarly, in trying to figure out how to improve your GMAT score, I don't need to consider whether you ought to attend business school. That's for you to decide, and doesn't have any impact on how to get the score.