GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

It is currently 25 Apr 2018, 05:37

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1927
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2018, 02:26
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (01:20) correct 62% (01:28) wrong based on 556 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
2 KUDOS received
Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1368
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2018, 02:45
2
This post received
KUDOS
chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.

Nutritionist: Too much copper => prevent users from absorbing Vit C.
Manufacturer: Copper is useful for the health.

We could easily see that the Manufacturer's answer is irrelevant since it didn't prove that the copper is at sufficient amount not to negative all Vit C in its product.
_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 214
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
CAT Tests
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2018, 23:23
broall wrote:
chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.

Nutritionist: Too much copper => prevent users from absorbing Vit C.
Manufacturer: Copper is useful for the health.

We could easily see that the Manufacturer's answer is irrelevant since it didn't prove that the copper is at sufficient amount not to negative all Vit C in its product.


Hi Broall,
Can you kindly explain why not option C, but option B?
The manufacturer's argument is flawed as he/she does not address the issue on vitamin C.
In option B, we know that copper blocks vitamin C, but may be we have other ingredients in the product that can nullify the copper's effect on blocking vitamin C.
Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1368
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2018, 02:50
sunny91 wrote:
broall wrote:
chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.

Nutritionist: Too much copper => prevent users from absorbing Vit C.
Manufacturer: Copper is useful for the health.

We could easily see that the Manufacturer's answer is irrelevant since it didn't prove that the copper is at sufficient amount not to negative all Vit C in its product.


Hi Broall,
Can you kindly explain why not option C, but option B?
The manufacturer's argument is flawed as he/she does not address the issue on vitamin C.
In option B, we know that copper blocks vitamin C, but may be we have other ingredients in the product that can nullify the copper's effect on blocking vitamin C.


Hi, the nutritionist's main concern here is about the copper and its effect, not about the vitamin C and the amount of vit C in the product.
_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2018, 03:06
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.


Ans: B

Nutritionist's argument: Your product has copper --> Copper is bad for Vit C absorption --> Your ad is wrong for saying your product is good source of Vit C

Manufacturer's argument: Some people lack copper --> My product has copper --> My product is good even though it has copper

Now by comparing the last part of the above, you can see that nutritionist is emphasizing that the advertising claims of "good source of vit C"are wrong, whereas the manufacturer is focused on saying his product is good even though it has copper.

The manufacturer did not address the invalidation claim towards its advertisements raised by the nutritionist --> Ans B
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2018, 06:36
Hi,

Please explain why C has been ruled out??
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jan 2018
Posts: 15
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2018, 10:37
broall wrote:
chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.

Nutritionist: Too much copper => prevent users from absorbing Vit C.
Manufacturer: Copper is useful for the health.

We could easily see that the Manufacturer's answer is irrelevant since it didn't prove that the copper is at sufficient amount not to negative all Vit C in its product.


I have the same question here, why option C is ruled out?
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Posts: 60
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2018, 19:42
broall wrote:
chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.

Nutritionist: Too much copper => prevent users from absorbing Vit C.
Manufacturer: Copper is useful for the health.

We could easily see that the Manufacturer's answer is irrelevant since it didn't prove that the copper is at sufficient amount not to negative all Vit C in its product.


Hi broall,
Can you please explain why C is dropped?
If the manufacturer mentioned how much Vit C is blocked and how much is left for absorption, then also he can refute nutritionist.
2 KUDOS received
Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1368
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2018, 00:45
2
This post received
KUDOS
kkrrsshh wrote:
Hi broall,
Can you please explain why C is dropped?
If the manufacturer mentioned how much Vit C is blocked and how much is left for absorption, then also he can refute nutritionist.


Missyy wrote:
I have the same question here, why option C is ruled out?


Hi, I have explained in a reply above

Choice B & choice C are really close.

First, choice B directly describes the problem that the nutritionist raised. Choice C expressed that problem in indirect way.

Second, I think the question makes a trap: Vit C is positive; copper is negative and we simply calculate the total to estimate the overall effect. It's not true. What if this case occur? If copper appears in out body with a amount larger than a certain point, the body can't absorb any Vit C. This case points out that answer C is wrong.
_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 May 2015
Posts: 6
Schools: ISB '18
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Mar 2018, 23:13
Correct Answer: Option B.

Option C is wrong because even if they describe the amount amount of vitamin C added by the company as stated in advertising campaign and the amount of copper added, we can not validate or invalidate the claim that the juice is a good source of Vitamin C.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 3
CAT Tests
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2018, 18:50
broall
Hi,
i found B and E close and it was only advertising claims that makes it better choice
Could you please explain how E is incorrect
1 KUDOS received
Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1368
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2018, 02:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
Swarna11 wrote:
broall
Hi,
i found B and E close and it was only advertising claims that makes it better choice
Could you please explain how E is incorrect


No, options B and E aren't close. We could eliminate choice E easily because Juice Manufacturer didn't try to prove that Nutritionist's evidence is irrelevant.
_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Re: Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep   [#permalink] 18 Apr 2018, 02:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.