One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of

Question

One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Thus, a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food.
(B) A child’s taste preference usually changes between age one and age two.
(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.
(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant.
(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

1 yr olds prefer sweet food over salty food.
If one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then at 2 yr old, the child will prefer salty over sweet.

Conclusion: A young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.

We are concluding that the child's preferences are affected by what is fed to him/her. So we are assuming that a 2 yr old is not naturally inclined to salty over sweet. That the food fed to the child caused the change in preference. 
If it were true that a 2 yr old naturally prefers salty over sweet then what food he was fed may have no relevance.

(A) Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food.

Yes, we are assuming that a 2 yr old does not naturally prefer salty over sweet. Correct

(B) A child’s taste preference usually changes between age one and age two.

Not assumed. In fact, the argument would make more sense if there were no natural changes in food preference from age 1 to 2.

(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.

Naturally preferring salty foods is far better than "naturally not disliking salty foods". Also here we are talking about "some other foods". Option (A) clearly talks about preferring "salty food over sweet food". This is not the right option.

(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant.

Irrelevant. We don't know what role pleasant taste plays.

(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food.

Irrelevant. No discussion on what is better.

Answer (A)

Ypsychotic · Answer

IMO, Option A.

Only when a one-year-old is fed salty food for over a year, he develops flavor for the salty foods. If it is not intervened as such, he will naturally prefer sweet food over the salty food. That is what is stated in Option A.

yash312 · Answer

IMO A

conclusion:Thus, a young child’s taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.

assumption: there is no other factor responsible for the taste preference of kids, others than continuous feeding of salty food.

(A) Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food.--correct
(B) A child’s taste preference usually changes between age one and age two.---Opposite, weakens the conclusion
(C) Two-year-olds do not naturally dislike salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods.--opposite, to conclusion
(D) The salty food fed to infants in order to change their taste preferences must taste pleasant.--irrelevant to argument
(E) Sweet food is better for infant development than is salty food. ---irrelevant

Pas4867 · Answer

D and E are simply irrelevant.

Out of the remaining three options, I think A is the right one. The passage is arguing that by consistently feeding a one year old salty food, one can alter their natural preferences (for sweet food over salty food). For this argument to stand, the one year olds must first have a natural preference for sweet food. Looking at the other two options, you will see that B actually weakens the argument by stating that the change in tastes is a natural process, which undercuts the idea that feeding the one year old salty foods will change their preference. C again weakens the argument by stating that one year olds actually do not like salty foods less than other types (including sweet).

kittle · Answer

As per the author of the argument, it is the exposure to "salt food" that led to the change of preferences. However, there could be other reasons why a young child could have shifted to salty food other than for the reason that he was exposed to such foods. What if the child normally/naturally is inclined to eat salty food by the time he/she reaches the age of 2.

Hence, an assumption here would be there there is "NO OUTSIDE CAUSE OTHER THAN EXPOSURE TO THE CHILD that led to change of preferences"
Option A does the job beautifully.

Hope this helps

kittle

Hence, an assumption here would be there there is "NO OUTSIDE CAUSE OTHER THAN EXPOSURE TO THE CHILD that led to change of preferences"
Option A does the job beautifully.

Hope this helps

kittle

AnujSingh0147 · Answer

What i did wrong in this question is firstly i misread the first option A and secondly didn't focus on the main theme exposure of a type of food to a one-year-old for developing taste.

though i eliminated option C, D, and E 
But also eliminated option A due to misreading of two year old to one year old.

Correct Explanation :

(A) states: “Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food.”

Why is this needed? Because if two-year-olds naturally shifted to liking salty more than sweet even without exposure, then the observed change in taste could simply be due to natural development, not exposure. That would undermine the conclusion that exposure caused the change.

So, the argument assumes that the change doesn’t naturally happen in two-year-olds (without salty food exposure) — exactly what (A) states.

However, I choose option B as the correct option 
(B) says: “A child’s taste preference usually changes between age one and age two.”

This suggests that taste preference changes normally, regardless of exposure. But the argument claims that exposure to salty food causes the shift.

If (B) were true, it would actually weaken the conclusion (by implying taste changes anyway). Thus, it is not an assumption required by the argument.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of

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

One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of

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