Angel dusting is a process wherein an ingredient, which would be benef

Hi abhi1693,

Please include the timer in the question. Thanks

IMO E wins over C and D because it matches the 1% criterion

Posted from my mobile device

Could anybody tell me why D is not the answer as the protein shake misleads the customers with their magic ingredient being 20%, which is less than the reference daily intake and hence providing no benefit?

Hello, people. First things first. The idea behind angel dusting is that it is a deceptive practice that seeks to make a claim that is true technically but not in any meaningful way.

A) A laptop that claims to have the longest battery backup, actually has a backup just 10% longer than is provided by its closest competitor

This is a worthy claim and is backed up (pardon the pun) properly with a significant 10 percent increase.

(B) A book that claims to cover all the concepts of Organic Chemistry actually provides just one example of each concept

I was tempted by this one. But if you think about it, the book may be incredibly detailed and provide an example of each concept as well. Ask yourself if you would feel deceived if you bought such a book. Yellow flag this and move on.

(C) A vitamin capsule that claims to contain 23 vitamins and amino acids contains less than 3% of each

Well, this is a little murky. Let's suppose you read that a capsule contains 23 vitamins. Even if all of them had an equal share that's roughly 4 percent each. So, is less than 3 percent each that bad? Yellow flag this one.

(D) A protein shake that claims to contain a magic ingredient that can make muscles grow faster, only contains 20% of this ingredient’s daily recommended intake

20 percent of an ingredient's daily recommended intake is quite significant. I understand why people may consider the magic ingredient part dubious, but even then it is not dubious in terms of angel dusting. Angel dusting is a deceptive practice not an untruthful one.

(E) An apartment that claims to have used Italian marble for its flooring has used exactly one slab of Italian marble and the remaining ninety-nine slabs of regular marble.

Bingo! This clearly smacks of that deception, a deception you cannot technically say is untrue but would leave you clenching your teeth if you ever found out!

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja egmat
Will you please explain this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

Angel Dusting - The concept of putting a tiny amount of something beneficial to be able to claim that your product provides the said benefits. This is a common practice we see in food and cosmetic industries - tiny amount of vitamins in cereals, tiny amount of gold in gold face packs etc such that the cost of manufacturing doesn't rise but it can be marketed as a superior product. The additive doesn't provide much benefit since it is put in very small quantities.

(A) A laptop that claims to have the longest battery backup, actually has a backup just 10% longer than is provided by its closest competitor

It could be the longest battery backup and 10% longer seems like a decent increase.

(B) A book that claims to cover all the concepts of Organic Chemistry actually provides just one example of each concept

The book could be "covering all concepts" and providing all theory. Giving just one example cannot be called "not beneficial".

(C) A vitamin capsule that claims to contain 23 vitamins and amino acids contains less than 3% of each

3% of 23 vitamins and amino acids will account for 69% of the capsule. The capsule claim that it contains 23 vitamins and amino acids would not be misleading. Note that the example in our argument says that the cereal contains "less than 1% of daily requirement of the vitamins and minerals". So it gives us less than 1% of what we need everyday which is a small amount. 3% of the capsule for each nutrient may be enough to cover our needs. In any case, we are not in a position to judge whether the amounts are too tiny to make a difference.

(D) A protein shake that claims to contain a magic ingredient that can make muscles grow faster, only contains 20% of this ingredient’s daily recommended intake

20% of daily intake does seem like a decent amount of the ingredient.

(E) An apartment that claims to have used Italian marble for its flooring has used exactly one slab of Italian marble and the remaining ninety-nine slabs of regular marble.

Correct. The apartment claims to have used "Italian marble" but it uses just 1 slab of it. So it is obvious that the one slab is used only to be able to make the claim. Else, the apartment is using regular marble only.

Answer (E)

Option D says 20 percent, which is definitely much lower than the required daily intake, however the argument implies that Angel dusting is basically a Fraud method. A protein shake containing 20% of daily intake is not a fraud(albeit a limitation), but advertising Italian marble when you have just used one single piece is definitely. SO option E. Also, the option E parallels the "1% or less" written in the argument.

Official Explanation

Answer: E

E is the correct answer. If the advertising suggests that the use of Italian marble has been done in the entire apartment and, in fact, only one out of hundred tiles is made of Italian marble, then it is as good as not having Italian marble in the flat at all.

(A) This does not suggest that the laptop has a short battery backup.

(B) The book claims to cover all the concepts, which it apparently does; it never claims to provide several examples of every concept.

(C) Irrelevant. We have no idea whether 3% of these vitamins and amino acids is adequate or inadequate. Even if the 23 ingredients are equally divided, each will comprise around 4% of the capsule, so 3% is not as low as it sounds. In any case, we don’t have any reference data.

(D) Again, we don’t have any reference data. It is possible that 20% of the magic ingredient coming from one source is a very good thing because the other sources contain less than 1% of the daily recommended intake of this ingredient.

(E) The correct answer. This option is the best of the lot because it gives you a reference figure of 99 tiles. If the apartment had five slabs of marble and one of them was Italian marble, then this may not necessarily be an example of Angel dusting, but the use of one tile out of 99 is definitely an example of Angel Dusting. This is the best option in our lot.

KarishmaB Bunuel

The main argument is about the ingredients which should be in "reasonable" (Beneficial in reasonable) quantity but are provided in "insignificant" quantity. 1% came from an specific example but can't be replicated in every other example.

D says 20% is recommended. Why recommended? Probably because it is beneficial in recommended quantity.

E says that one Italian marble is used. How do we know that 1 marble is reasonable. What information we have for comparison between Italian marble and normal marble.

D looks much better.

Please comment

There is a recommended daily intake for every nutrient and the amount varies a lot depending on the nutrient. We need 1000mg of calcium, but only 15 mg of iron etc. So what is reasonable is to know what % of the daily recommended amount is provided by a certain food/supplement etc.
A supplement that gives us 20% of the recommended amount seems fair. Say, if a slice of cheese gives you 20% of the calcium you need and the cheese makers claim that it gives you calcium, it sound good, right? Hence, (D) doesn't sound bad. It doesn't mislead people.

The point is the intent behind the claim. Angel dusting is basically "misleading" the consumer.
If a builder claims that he has used "Italian marble" for the flooring, what would the consumer expect? That the floor is made using Italian marble. But what if he has used only one tile of Italian marble and rest all is cheap marble? He can still "technically" say that he has used Italian marble for the flooring but he is misleading the consumer. Only 1 tile is Italian to be Abel to make that claim. This is the concept of angel dusting and hence (E) is correct.

I am quite happy with the explanations provided but I wanted to throw in my two cents. GMAT aspirants would not be expected to know what Angel Dusting is. Going by the precise language of the argument, Angel Dusting is a "process wherein an ingredient, which would be beneficial in a reasonable quantity, is instead added by manufacturers to their products in an insignificant quantity so that they can make the claim that their product contains that ingredient, and mislead the consumer into expecting that they will gain the benefit of that ingredient"

When I look at this statement and then the subsequent example, I would not really apply this to anything beyond the manufacturing of a product and how it is sold to the customer. The ingredients in most ways refer to the use of something in the manufacturing of mostly an edible product (from the argument example) although we can argue the analogy could be stretched to anything being manufactured and sold.

Comparing the options, I tended towards D for four reasons.
First, it clearly is an example of Angel Dusting as can be derived from the definition in the argument.
Second, it most closely resembles the example provided in the argument as something edible is manufactured and one of the ingredients, although claims to make muscles grow faster, won't be doing so because it does not have a reasonable quantity.
Third, although this is a weak differentiator I thought of putting it in. Option D clearly suggests that something was manufactured while I don't see that in Option E. Although we can argue that the flooring is analogous to the manufacturing and the tile to the ingredient.
Fourth and the most important one, In Option D, I can clearly identify the benefit that the consumer is expecting to derive from the product but won't actually get it. Option E does not state what benefit is the consumer expecting. The customer might only need the welcome tile of the house to be Italian so he could very well be fine with it