In the last decade there has been a significant decrease in coffee con

(A) On average, people consume 30 percent less coffee today than they did 10 years ago. - Does not prove why the consumption of coffee has come down - Incorrect

(B) Heavy coffee drinkers may have mild withdrawal symptoms, such as headaches, for a day or so after significantly decreasing their coffee consumption. - Out of scope and Irrelevant information - Incorrect

(C) Sales of specialty types of coffee have held steady as sales of regular brands have declined. - Does not fill the gap between decreased coffee sales and awareness in people about harmful affects of caffine - Incorrect

(D) The consumption of fruit juices and caffeine-free herbal teas has increased over the past decade. - No direct relation can be assumed between increase in consumption of fruit jucies and decrease in consumption of coffee - Incorrect

(E) Coffee prices increased steadily in the past decade because of unusually severe frosts in coffee-growing nations. - Due to increase in coffee prices because of low produce, the consumption has also come down - Correct

got it down to C and E,

Negated C , my reason was that it does try to make you infer that may this is something to do with regular coffee , but does not directly point to causality.
E does that ...

Clear E , in weaking questions finding an alternative to the conclusion often helps

@Chris, From stimulus, I assessed the conclusion as Cause --> Effect chain as: Awareness --->Decrease in Coffee Consumption.
For D, Cant we say that Alternate Cause "Increase in fruit juice Consumption" could have alternatively caused --->Decrease in Coffee Consumption?

Isn't an increase in coffee price is as good alternate explanation for switchover as the increase in alternate option of having fruit juices (which are healthier as well)?

Coffee prices increased steadily in the past decade because of unusually severe frosts in coffee-growing nations. - Due to increase in coffee prices because of low produce, the consumption has also come down
Hence E. This Weakens the argument

can be easily narrowed down to C and E. Between C and E, only E directly addresses the conclusion by stating that there has been other cause that led to decreased consumption.

Cause: Awareness of harmful effects of caffeine.
Effect: Decrease in coffee consumption.

Option E provides a different cause, weakening the argument.

Answer: E

The argument states that the decrease in coffee consumption can only be explained by the sudden awareness amongst consumers that caffeine has adverse health effects. To weaken this argument we need an answer choice that provides a compelling alternative explanation.

(E) says that coffee prices have increased steadily in the past decade. Such an increase in price could push consumers away and therefore account for the decrease in coffee consumption.

If one has studied syllogistic logic and fallacies in general , it is very easy to see the flaw in this argument.
This argument commits the fallacy of CAUSAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION which is a logical fallacy , belonging in the family of FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION.

See this argument for example:-
It is because of the skilled doctors that today's generation has a higher average life period than generation of last century.

Well, skilled doctors may be one of the reasons for higher life span, but better and safer transport, less accidents, availability of better medicines, Less wars and endemic diseases (such a plague which killed 20% of entire europes population in 19th century) may be other factors. Attributing higher life to skilled doctors is not entirely right.
NOW APPLY THE SAME LOGIC HERE :-

Does the coffee consumption decreased because of studies showing its harmful effect :- HELL NO !! well may be a little. But may be coffee consumption decreased because it has become so expensive that people do not buy it as frequently as they used to earlier.

(E) Coffee prices increased steadily in the past decade because of unusually severe frosts in coffee-growing nations
CORRECT ANSWER IS E

In last decade, coffee consumption has decreased.
At the same time, there has been increasing publicity of adverse long term effects of caffeine.

Conclusion: the decrease in coffee consumption must have been caused by consumers' awareness of the harmful effects of caffeine.

The logic is flawed, right? Just because they occur simultaneously, doesn't mean one is actually the reason for the other.

We need to weaken the argument.

(A) On average, people consume 30 percent less coffee today than they did 10 years ago.

This doesn't weaken the argument. It is already known that people consume less coffee today. The argument says that it is because of bad publicity. We need to evaluate whether the decrease is because of bad publicity. We need the reason because of which the consumption of coffee is going down. Just restating the fact that consumption of coffee is going down does not weaken our argument.

(B) Heavy coffee drinkers may have mild withdrawal symptoms, such as headaches, for a day or so after significantly decreasing their coffee consumption.

Irrelevant to the argument.

(C) Sales of specialty types of coffee have held steady as sales of regular brands have declined.

Overall, the sales of coffee has reduced even if sales of some specialty types have held steady.

(D) The consumption of fruit juices and caffeine-free herbal teas has increased over the past decade.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what is replacing coffee.

(E) Coffee prices increased steadily in the past decade because of unusually severe frosts in coffee-growing nations.

This could be the reason for decrease in the consumption of coffee. So this brings into question the causality established by the argument.

Answer (E)

Hi Bunuel

A tag of: "Source: Official guide" should be added with this question.

_____________________
Added the tag. Thank you.

Dear Expert,

I have a hard time accepting E as the answer because it makes too many assumptions - too many bridges. First of all, consumption is different from purchasing. E points to the fact that coffee is purchased less than before, but that doesn't necessarily mean coffee is consumed less. Second of all, another bridge is that higher price will lead to lower buy - this is not necessarily true, either. Sometimes, some products' increase in their prices can lead to higher demand because of the perceived luxuriousness of the product.

Because too many assumptions have to be made, I got rid of this choice pretty early on. From other questions in CR, I've learned that I cannot make too many assumptions, but this question seems to want me to do just the opposite. Would you please explain when assumptions are acceptable and when they are just too far? Thanks!

This question is a Weaken question. It asks the test-taker to find a choice that "most seriously calls into question the explanation" provided.

Notice, we don't have to PROVE WITH CERTAINTY that the explanation is incorrect. We have merely to CALL IT INTO QUESTION. So, our line of thinking can involve making some assumptions or leaps.

Regarding the fact that consumption is different from purchasing, if this question were an Inference question, and its answer therefore had to be one that MUST BE TRUE, then it might make sense to be concerned about the difference between purchasing and consumption. However, since this is a Weaken question, and we have merely to find information that calls the conclusion into question, we can use common sense thinking and take into consideration the rather high probability that a decline in purchasing of coffee will lead to a decline in consumption.

Regarding the fact that higher prices don't necessarily lead to decreased purchasing, since higher prices usually lead to decreased purchasing, choice (E) does provide a reason to question the validity of the explanation stated in the argument. Choice (E) does not tell us with certainty that the explanation is incorrect, but by providing a plausible alternative cause for the decrease in consumption, choice (E) provides a good reason to question the validity of the conclusion.

Woah thank you very much. That was super clear. I keep getting hung up on what kind of assumptions I can/ cannot make. While we're at it, may I ask another question that also seems to be fuzzy with assumptions:

Images from ground-based telescopes are invariably distorted by the Earth's atmosphere. Orbiting space telescopes, however, operating above Earth's atmosphere, should provide superbly detailed images. Therefore, ground-based telescopes will soon become obsolete for advanced astronomical research purposes.


Which of the following statements, if true, would cast the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

A. An orbiting space telescope due to be launched this year is far behind schedule and over budget, whereas the largest ground-based telescope was both within budget and on schedule.

B. Ground-based telescopes located on mountain summits are not subject to the kinds of atmospheric distortion which, at low altitudes, make stars appear to twinkle.

C. By careful choice of observatory location, it is possible for large-aperture telescopes to avoid most of the kind of wind turbulence that can distort image quality.

D. When large-aperture telescopes are located at high altitudes near the equator, they permit the best Earth-based observations of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, a prime target of astronomical research.

E. Detailed spectral analyses, upon which astronomers rely for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars, require telescopes with more light-gathering capacity than space telescopes can provide.

The answer is E. However, it requires that I have to assume that the telescopes with more light-gathering capacity is the ground-based one. We have to assume that there are only two types, either ground-based telescope or space telescope, and this makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Would you please explain why it's ok to make that assumption in this one? Thanks!

There are two aspects to the answer to your question.

One is that once again we don't have to prove with certainty that the argument's conclusion is incorrect. We have merely to call it into question. The fact that detailed spectral analyses require telescopes with capabilities that space telescopes don't have serves to call into question the conclusion that Earth-based telescopes will become obsolete, even if there may be some other type of telescope, because it could be the case that Earth-based telescopes do have the capabilities that space telescopes lack. We don't know for sure that Earth-based telescopes have those capabilities, but we do know that space telescopes don't, and thus, choice (E) provides a good reason to wonder whether perhaps Earth-based telescopes won't become obsolete after all.

The second aspect of the answer to your question is that correctly answering verbal questions often takes making judgment calls, and in this case, you can make the call regarding whether there is possibly a third type of telescope and the call regarding what the question writer was probably thinking. Have you heard of a third type of telescope? What would that type be? A fourth dimension telescope? A Mars based telescope? Have you heard of any telescopes on Mars? What do you think the question writer was thinking as the question writer was creating this question, that there is a third type? or that there are essentially two types of telescopes, Earth-based and space?

Yes, the question would perhaps be a bit better had the writer clearly indicated that there are only two types of telescopes, but there will be issues or slight imperfections in verbal questions. All the same, almost all of the time, maybe 99.5 percent of the time, there is reasonable way to arrive at the correct answer to a question anyway. So, if you want to rock verbal, you have to learn to make the judgment calls that get you to the correct answers.

Dear Marty,

Thank you for such a clear and thorough response. I feel much better now. Your response also supports why D is not the answer. In D, we know for sure that it provides the best Earth-based observations, but what if space telescopes can provide even better observations - that we don't know, so it can still be the case that earth-based ones will become obsolete. Therefore, we CAN'T weaken the conclusion. In E, we don't know if Earth-based has it but we know for sure that Space-based one doesn't have it, there's still a chance that Earth-based might have it, and so we MIGHT be able to weaken the conclusion.

Thank you!