Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 21:29 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 21:29
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
705-805 Level|   Assumption|      
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,390
Own Kudos:
778,392
 [21]
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,390
Kudos: 778,392
 [21]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 26 May 2023, 01:16
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
18
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:59) correct 43% (02:06) wrong based on 1081 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption which one of the following?

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.
(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.
(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.
(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
TargetKellogg2024
User avatar
MBA Section Director
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 442
Own Kudos:
732
 [10]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: Germany
GMAT 1: 680 Q47 V36
GMAT 2: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GRE 1: Q170 V163
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GRE 1: Q170 V163
Posts: 442
Kudos: 732
 [10]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 28 Jun 2023, 14:39
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption which one of the following?

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.
(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.
(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.
(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.
Show more


I just realized why answer option (C) is correct and (A) is incorrect:

1. athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

2. athletes who need to improve their muscular strength should not consume engineered foods.

1 is not the same as 2.

What is the difference?
In 1, the comma after athletes suggests all athletes, not just the ones who need muscular strength. However, 2 suggests that ONLY the athletes who need muscular strength.
Quite a tricky one, but the learnings of SC need to be applied here!
General Discussion
User avatar
ARSarkar
User avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2022
Last visit: 08 Aug 2023
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
29
 [2]
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 31
Kudos: 29
 [2]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 26 May 2023, 03:03
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The premise says the engineered food doesn't help growth in muscle mass. The conclusion says muscle strength. hence Muscle mass must be connected to muscle strength. Hence assumption is A.
User avatar
brightgmat
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2022
Last visit: 29 Apr 2025
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
42
Given Kudos: 29
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.35
WE:Engineering (Consumer Packaged Goods)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
Posts: 76
Kudos: 42
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 27 May 2023, 10:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imo C.

Engineered food -> no muscle strength
Therefore, if Athletes want muscle strength = no engineered food.

We are assuming that engineered foods should only be eaten when muscle strength needs to be increased.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
abhishekmayank
User avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 201
Own Kudos:
59
 [4]
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Posts: 201
Kudos: 59
 [4]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 28 May 2023, 02:03
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here conclusion is only on Muscle Strength :

Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength ...

So,C cant be answer. It must be A
User avatar
kgaitanis
User avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2014
Last visit: 04 Apr 2025
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
5
 [2]
Given Kudos: 60
Posts: 7
Kudos: 5
 [2]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 28 May 2023, 15:47
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bad question.
The premise essentially says “for athletes wanting to improve their muscular strength —-> no point in taking engineered foods because blablabla”

But the question is: what about those athletes who don’t care about their muscular strength? What if they want to grow for some reason their connective tissue?

How can the correct option be one that claims that essentially the assumption is that all athletes will not want this kind of benefit? It’s only those who want muscular growth that they will be impacted!

A is the correct answer

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
TargetKellogg2024
User avatar
MBA Section Director
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 442
Own Kudos:
732
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: Germany
GMAT 1: 680 Q47 V36
GMAT 2: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GRE 1: Q170 V163
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GRE 1: Q170 V163
Posts: 442
Kudos: 732
 [1]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 28 Jun 2023, 14:33
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The conclusion specifically mentions that athletes "who want to improve their muscular strength" should not consume engineered food. However, the correct official answer is (C) that focuses on other benefits that an athlete might have by consuming engineered food. Option (A), which necessarily links the premise (no effect of engineered food on muscular strength) with the conclusion, is incorrect. Can you please explain how is the reasoning done for this?
User avatar
Ayushi0002
User avatar
Joined: 07 May 2023
Last visit: 10 Oct 2025
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 21
Posts: 51
Kudos: 23
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 17 Sep 2024, 22:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think a question can be built with many assumptions, and A would have been right if C weren't present. Or If the conclusion directed towards it. Since our conclusion said that - Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods. -- It clearly directs you to C saying that there is no other reason for the athlete to take engineered food in this case other than muscle strength.
User avatar
Reformate
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2023
Last visit: 16 Mar 2025
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 24 Sep 2024, 08:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Negate Option A and Conclusion will not break. I think that's why it is option C
User avatar
unraveled
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,720
Own Kudos:
2,259
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,720
Kudos: 2,259
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 01 Oct 2024, 09:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Reformate
Negate Option A and Conclusion will not break. I think that's why it is option C
Show more
This question seems to not make much sense. Reasoning being that conclusion(blue text) is about increasing muscular strength for which athletes should not consume engineered foods. A and C are only two that make some sense but both are not good enough for me.

So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption which one of the following?

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength. - This makes sense since If muscle mass increase does not lead to increase in strength then what would. However, it is still half cooked since it does not cover the aspect of engineered food.

(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it. - This choice suggests to make engineered foods as centre of the passage around it revolves wherein it is about the improving strength by not consuming engineered foods. Also, other advantages... what advantages it is concerned about.

All in all both are half cooked.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,001
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,001
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 02 Oct 2024, 23:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption which one of the following?

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.
(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.
(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.
(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.
Show more


Premises:
Engineered foods produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass;
This does not improve muscle strength.

Conclusion:
athletes (people who need to improve their muscular strength) should not consume engineered foods.

Based on the fact that engineered foods do not improve muscle strength, the author is concluding that athletes should not consume engineered foods. What is he assuming? That engineered foods provide no other benefit to athletes. That athletes do not need growth in connective tissue. Look at the options:

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.

This is not our assumption. It doesn't connect to the conclusion at all. It may be something that is implied by the argument - because the author says that EFs produce growth in connective tissue, not in muscle mass. Growth in connective tissues doesn't improve muscle strength. So in a way he is implying that growth in muscle mass may improve muscle strength, ok.
But is this an assumption for our conclusion? No.
If we negate it and get that "an increase in muscle mass does not produce an increase in strength", it is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. The conclusion talks about whether athletes should consume EF or not. EF anyway has no impact on muscle mass. So what happens when you gain muscle mass, we don't care.


(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.

Irrelevant. Our argument's scope only includes athletes. No assumption made about non athletes.

(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.

Correct. This is the assumption. He assumes that just because EFs do not improve muscle strength, they have no other benefit and hence athletes should not take it.

(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.

Irrelevant. Whether it is healthy and advisable is out of scope of this argument.

(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.

All we know is that EFs do not grow muscle mass. How muscle strength is obtained after growing muscle mass (and whether it is obtained at all), we don't care.

Answer (C)

Assumptions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU
A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU
User avatar
Vasavan
User avatar
Joined: 10 May 2023
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 140
Own Kudos:
21
Given Kudos: 29
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26 IIM
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q88 V86 DI83
GPA: 10
WE:Programming (Technology)
Schools: ISB '26 IIM
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q88 V86 DI83
Posts: 140
Kudos: 21
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 08 Oct 2024, 11:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The conclusion is "Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods." Option C says "If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it." If negated, C would read "If EF does not improve muscle strength there is a substantial advantage to athletes". But this need not hold true for conclusion to stand right? The conclusion clearly mentions for athletes who need to improve muscle strength. So say the other advantage is improved speed, would that really help the athlete in the conclusion?

KarishmaB
Bunuel
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption which one of the following?

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.
(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.
(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.
(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.


Premises:
Engineered foods produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass;
This does not improve muscle strength.

Conclusion:
athletes (people who need to improve their muscular strength) should not consume engineered foods.

Based on the fact that engineered foods do not improve muscle strength, the author is concluding that athletes should not consume engineered foods. What is he assuming? That engineered foods provide no other benefit to athletes. That athletes do not need growth in connective tissue. Look at the options:

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.

This is not our assumption. It doesn't connect to the conclusion at all. It may be something that is implied by the argument - because the author says that EFs produce growth in connective tissue, not in muscle mass. Growth in connective tissues doesn't improve muscle strength. So in a way he is implying that growth in muscle mass may improve muscle strength, ok.
But is this an assumption for our conclusion? No.
If we negate it and get that "an increase in muscle mass does not produce an increase in strength", it is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. The conclusion talks about whether athletes should consume EF or not. EF anyway has no impact on muscle mass. So what happens when you gain muscle mass, we don't care.


(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.

Irrelevant. Our argument's scope only includes athletes. No assumption made about non athletes.

(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.

Correct. This is the assumption. He assumes that just because EFs do not improve muscle strength, they have no other benefit and hence athletes should not take it.

(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.

Irrelevant. Whether it is healthy and advisable is out of scope of this argument.

(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.

All we know is that EFs do not grow muscle mass. How muscle strength is obtained after growing muscle mass (and whether it is obtained at all), we don't care.

Answer (C)

Assumptions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU
A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,001
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,001
 [1]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 08 Oct 2024, 23:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The negation of an assumption kills the conclusion.

Assumption: (C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
Negation: If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there are other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.


The conclusion says that athletes should not consumer EFs (because they do not provide muscle strength).
But the negation of assumption says that EFs have other substantial benefits for athletes. Then perhaps athletes should consume EFs. Our conclusion is broken.




Vasavan
The conclusion is "Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods." Option C says "If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it." If negated, C would read "If EF does not improve muscle strength there is a substantial advantage to athletes". But this need not hold true for conclusion to stand right? The conclusion clearly mentions for athletes who need to improve muscle strength. So say the other advantage is improved speed, would that really help the athlete in the conclusion?

KarishmaB
Bunuel
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assumption which one of the following?

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.
(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.
(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.
(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.


Premises:
Engineered foods produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass;
This does not improve muscle strength.

Conclusion:
athletes (people who need to improve their muscular strength) should not consume engineered foods.

Based on the fact that engineered foods do not improve muscle strength, the author is concluding that athletes should not consume engineered foods. What is he assuming? That engineered foods provide no other benefit to athletes. That athletes do not need growth in connective tissue. Look at the options:

(A) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.

This is not our assumption. It doesn't connect to the conclusion at all. It may be something that is implied by the argument - because the author says that EFs produce growth in connective tissue, not in muscle mass. Growth in connective tissues doesn't improve muscle strength. So in a way he is implying that growth in muscle mass may improve muscle strength, ok.
But is this an assumption for our conclusion? No.
If we negate it and get that "an increase in muscle mass does not produce an increase in strength", it is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. The conclusion talks about whether athletes should consume EF or not. EF anyway has no impact on muscle mass. So what happens when you gain muscle mass, we don't care.


(B) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.

Irrelevant. Our argument's scope only includes athletes. No assumption made about non athletes.

(C) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.

Correct. This is the assumption. He assumes that just because EFs do not improve muscle strength, they have no other benefit and hence athletes should not take it.

(D) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.

Irrelevant. Whether it is healthy and advisable is out of scope of this argument.

(E) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.

All we know is that EFs do not grow muscle mass. How muscle strength is obtained after growing muscle mass (and whether it is obtained at all), we don't care.

Answer (C)

Assumptions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU
A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU
Show more
User avatar
tgmat24
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 05 Nov 2025
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 59
Posts: 79
Kudos: 5
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 04 Apr 2025, 05:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja can you please clarify why not A? Still confused.

"these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength"
Shouldn't this mean that muscle mass growth improves muscle strength?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
 [1]
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consis 22 Apr 2025, 08:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tgmat24
GMATNinja can you please clarify why not A? Still confused.

"these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength"

Shouldn't this mean that muscle mass growth improves muscle strength?
Show more
(A) may in fact be true, but we're looking for something that is REQUIRED in order for the argument to work.

The passage says that athletes should not consume engineered foods because those foods do not improve muscle strength. But what if those foods offer some other benefit aside from improving muscle strength? In that case, there would be a reason for athletes to consume the engineered foods even though those foods do not improve muscle strength.

Choice (C) removes this possible flaw in the agreement and allows us to reach the conclusion safely.

I hope that helps!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts