Preservatives known as parabens function like weak versions of the hor

Question

Preservatives known as parabens function like weak versions of the hormone estrogen. These artificial estrogens are commonly added to cosmetic products used on hair and skin. Some cosmetics manufacturers refrain from using parabens in their products. Consequently, consumers who have adverse reactions to externally-applied hormones can safely use these paraben-free products without risking their health.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. These cosmetics manufacturers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by parabens by means that do not involve adding artificial substances to their products.

B. Not all forms of artifical estrogens are equally likely to produce adverse reactions.

C. Cosmetics are the only products to which parabens are commonly added.

D. Estrogens are not naturally present in the cosmetics produced by these manufacturers in amounts large enough to produce an adverse reaction in someone who uses these cosmetics.

E. Apart from parabens, there are no substances commonly present in cosmetics that give rise to adverse reactions.

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Conclusion: consumers who have adverse reactions to externally-applied hormones can safely use these paraben-free products without risking their health.

Prethinking: To make paraben-free products safe (from hormone impact), products must not get hormone from other channels.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. These cosmetics manufacturers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by parabens by means that do not involve adding artificial substances to their products. -> but, we need to think, how products are safe to use. Incorrect.

B. Not all forms of artifical estrogens are equally likely to produce adverse reactions. -> Sill there is risk, we are not sure to have a safe product for the customer. Incorrect.

C. Cosmetics are the only products to which parabens are commonly added. -> But, we are talking about to safe products without having parabens. Incorrect.

D. Estrogens are not naturally present in the cosmetics produced by these manufacturers in amounts large enough to produce an adverse reaction in someone who uses these cosmetics. -> So, there is no other way to get Estrogens (in harmful level) in these products. So, products are safe to use. Let's keep it.

E. Apart from parabens, there are no substances commonly present in cosmetics that give rise to adverse reactions. -> We are worried about hormone in parabens, not from other substances. Incorrect.

So, I think D.

Bunuel · Answer

Veritas Prep Official Explanation

Answer D  - The key to this problem is the recognition that in the conclusion (the final sentence of the stimulus), the author extends the argument from the synthetic estrogens known as parabens to all externally-applied hormones. If a consumer responds poorly to both natural and artificial hormones in skin and hair-care products, then these products may not be safe to use, even if they do not contain parabens.

Choice A is out of scope. The shelf-life of these cosmetics is not at issue.

Choice B is irrelevant because the premises of the argument deal only with parabens, not with other forms of artificial estrogens.

Choice C is similarly irrelevant because the argument has nothing to do with non-cosmetics products.

Choice D is correct.  The conclusion that paraben-free cosmetics can safely be used by hormone-sensitive customers depends on the assumption that there are not significant quantities of natural hormones in the cosmetics that might also produce an adverse reaction.

Choice E is out of scope, because the premises concern only reactions caused by parabens.

rs47 · Answer

The question simply mentions adverse reactions to externally applied hormones, not adverse reactions to parabens.. Option E is, IMHO, the best choice..

Fdambro294 · Answer

E seems like one of those tricky answers that may strengthen the argument if it were used as support. However, the author need not assume the fact.

The conclusion is that consumers who have adverse reactions to “externally applied hormones” can safely use these products that do not use the parabens.

As the official explanation says, the key is to notice the scope shift from the supporting facts to the conclusion.

The facts talk about the products being free of any of these “artificial” hormones. However, the conclusion made is that if you are a consumer who tends to have adverse reactions to ANY externally applied hormone, then you will be safe when you use these paraben free products.

The jump is from focusing on the artificial estrogen-like parabens in the facts to being safe from any type of externally applied hormone.

If E were true, it would seem to support the conclusion. If there are no other substances that give rise to reactions and the parabens are taken out, then it seems like the consumers would be safe when they use the paraben free products.

However, it is not NECESSARY for the author to assume this. It could be the case that there are ingredients that give rise to adverse reactions in some other types of people, but not the people whom this argument is focused on: “consumers who have adverse reactions to externally applied hormones.”

So we can have substances other than parabens give rise to adverse reactions. As long as they do not affect this subset of consumers who are affected by externally applied hormones, the argument is still supported by the facts.

However, D harms the conclusion and almost destroys it. Because of the scope shift in the conclusion, we are looking at consumers who are harmed by any externally applied hormones. The hormones do not have to be the artificial estrogen-like parabens.

If there were other estrogens naturally occurring in the products, then it would be hard to say that just because these products don’t have parabens, the consumers will be safe.

When the official explanations say an answer is “out of scope”, it is sometimes hard to really understand what this means unless the writers explain why the answer is “out of scope.”

Posted from my mobile device

rs47 · Answer

Fdambro294 , thanks for your reply.. Much appreciated!!

But the conclusion of the argument stem mentions this: "Consequently, consumers who have adverse reactions to externally-applied hormones can safely use these paraben-free products without risking their health"

If there are other substances apart from parabens which may give rise to adverse reactions, then the consumers could very well risk their health.. Accordingly, the author of the argument stem can't say with confidence that consumers who have adverse reactions to EAH would not risk their health.. Health risks may happen due to substances other than parabens and other EAH.. Hence E also does seem like a necessary assumption.. (you have addressed point E in your argument but still E does not seem like it can be easily ruled out because of this)

Regarding point D, it talks about natural estrogen while the conclusion is about customers reacting adversely to externally applied hormones like parabens..

Fdambro294 · Answer

I tend to agree with you.

These are great examples of subtle “shifts” that the GMAT avoids in the majority of its questions.

Unfortunately, as good as I think Veritas and Manhattan Prep are at creating these questions, they will never quite be the same thing.

I’m going to call in  IanStewart  and see if he takes the bait.

Edit: or anyone else who could come in and clear some confusion up.

Posted from my mobile device

IanStewart · Answer

This question is an obvious copy of this official question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/many-people- ... 25973.html You might notice, though, that the logic in the official question is airtight, whereas in this prep company question, it is not. The conclusion in the official question is that people can drink the no-sulfite-added wine "without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites." In this attempt to copy that question, the conclusion instead says people can use the no-paraben-added cosmetics "without risking their health." In the official version, the only assumption is that there are no naturally-occurring sulfites in the wine, and there is only one correct answer choice. In this bad copy of that question, the conclusion is no longer only about allergic reactions to a single substance. The conclusion is about risk to health in general. Now we're not only assuming that there is no naturally occurring hormone in the cosmetic; we're also assuming the cosmetics don't contain anything else (pesticides, lead, arsenic, etc) that might be dangerous to health. We need to assume that to draw the sweeping conclusion that the argument draws, that these cosmetics pose no risk to health at all. So the official question only has one right answer. This prep company copy has two right answers, D and E, because they didn't copy the conclusion correctly. The OE is just logical nonsense when it says "Choice E is out of scope, because the premises concern only reactions caused by parabens", because assumptions are unstated things we use to draw conclusions . You can't look at the premises of an argument in isolation to decide if an assumption is "out of scope". You need to look at how the stated premises relate to the conclusion drawn. In general, you won't ever encounter this issue (questions with two right answers) if you focus only on official questions, so that's what I'd recommend doing.

Fdambro294 · Answer

Thank you much  IanStewart

As always, your insight is invaluable.

And thank you too  rs47

Anything that helps me learn is greatly appreciated.

I have begun to question the use of the phrase “out of scope” in a lot of published answers. Saying an answer is wrong because it is “out of scope” is almost equivalent to saying “this answer is wrong because it is.....wrong!”

Let’s get there together and tackle this beast.

Posted from my mobile device

rs47 · Answer

Thank you  IanStewart ,  Fdambro294 ..

I am glad if my points helped in relation to this question..

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Preservatives known as parabens function like weak versions of the hor

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

Preservatives known as parabens function like weak versions of the hor

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