Stickler: Though I admit that this vegan ‘red velvet’ cake is

The goal here is to first look at the question stem - "Which of the following is an assumption on which the stickler’s argument depends?"

The argument that Stickler makes is that red velvet cake contains cream cheese by definition and since vegan cakes would not contain any it should not be referred to as red velvet cake.

So, lets apply process of elimination (PoE) here:

a. Cream cheese is defined not by its taste, but by its composition. - this assumption would help Stickler's argument.
b. Red velvet cake must contain milk. - this assumption is irrelevant as it is not associated with cream cheese. This choice can eliminated
c. Any vegan cake ought not to take the name of its non-vegan counterpart. - Stickler makes no argument about any other cake other than red velvet which makes this statement too broad. This choice can be eliminated.
d. A proper red velvet cake has a white, creamy appearance. - this assumption is irrelevant as it is not associated with cream cheese. This choice can eliminated.
e. The amount of cream cheese in a red velvet cake is not variable - even though this is related to cream cheese it does not help the argument. This choice can be eliminated.

The answer is A.

Hope this helps!

Lighthouse Prep

I'll try.

A is correct b/c if you negate it, the A/C says "cream cheese is defined by its taste, not (by) its composition". In the passage, the stickler admits that vegan ‘red velvet’ cake is indistinguishable in taste, texture, and appearance from a traditional dairy-based red velvet cake. Therefore, if cream cheese IS defined by taste (as opposed to composition - or the fact that it has dairy), THEN, the 'vegan red velvet' cake CAN be properly called 'red velvet' cake.

Make sense?

My friend, it's good that you're applying prethinking. You'll be good at it soon with practice. Actually, in this question, you missed the general definition of definition and what is does.
1. one product can not have two definitions((Definitions is always single. If there are 2 definition, that mean they will be 2 different thing. Definitions distinguishes between things))
2. definition defines the name of product((Yes, Definition itself mean that it defines something ))

Stickler: Though I admit that this vegan ‘red velvet’ cake is indistinguishable in taste, texture, and appearance from a traditional dairy-based red velvet cake, it should not be referred to as a red velvet cake, even with the vegan qualifier. After all, a red velvet cake by definition contains cream cheese, and no vegan cake can contain cream cheese, only non-dairy approximations.

(C) Any vegan cake ought not to take the name of its non-vegan counterpart.((As per this option. Consider something that is defined and named by it's smell, or taste. Consider it to be non-vegan. Now if there's anything vegan, that has same taste or smell, they they can not be names as their non vegan counterpart ? There are many real examples of such things. If you understand this, you'll be able to understand option A ))

Could someone please explain why option C is incorrect? If we negate this option “Any vegan cake OUGHT TO take the name of its non-vegan counterpart”, it breaks down the conclusion as well because in if any vegan cake can take the name of a non-vegan cake, then RV cake can be referred to as a RV cake.

Hi

Option (C) states: Any vegan cake ought not to take the name of its non-vegan counterpart.

It's negation is not: Any vegan cake will take the name of its non-vegan counterpart.

The correct negation will be: At least one vegan cake can take the name of its non-vegan counterpart.

This does not negate the conclusion that this particular "red-velvet" cake should not take the name of its non-vegan counterpart, since it is still possible for another vegan cake to take the name of its non-vegan counterpart to satisfy this condition (negated option (C)) and for red-velvet to be barred from taking the name of its non-vegan counterpart.

Hope this clarifies.
_________________

Light house prep . Can you please elaborate why choice A is the answer ? After detailed walk through I am convinced that all the other options have no chance to be the answer.

Answers (A) and (E) are both equally contenders, why (A) is better than (E). Please help

a.Cream cheese is defined not by its taste, but by its composition.
Since cream cheese cannot be defined with out its composition and cream cheese contains milk products, vegan cannot have cream cake with out its original composition. So vegan cannot be called red velvet.

e.The amount of cream cheese in a red velvet cake is not variable
If it is variable it can vary from 100% to 0%, then in that case it shatters the conclusion and the vegan cake can be called as red velvet.

OE by veritas prep:

Any Assumption question can be solved by employing the Assumption Negation Technique, and this question is no exception. Negate each answer choice, plug that negation into the argument, and see if the negation undermines or outright refutes the conclusion.

Here answer choice (A) destroys the conclusion: if cream cheese is defined by its taste, then a vegan red velvet cake that tastes like a dairy-based red velvet cake can be referred to as a red velvet cake.

E is nowhere an assumption. Lets negate E and check if it affects the argument.

The amount of cream cheese in a red velvet cake is variable. It need not vary from 0-100% and vary between a close range of 10-15% and still be called variable. But does it matter to the conclusion? No

What is the point of considering 0% of cheese in other words when it does not exist?

Choice A is a clear winner for reasons already described above.

Cream cheese is defined not by its taste, but by its composition.

negating it gives => Cream cheese is defined by its taste , but not by composition => breaks the argument.

OA and official answer veritas prep

Solution: A

Any Assumption question can be solved by employing the Assumption Negation Technique, and this question is no exception. Negate each answer choice, plug that negation into the argument, and see if the negation undermines or outright refutes the conclusion. Here answer choice (A) destroys the conclusion: if cream cheese is defined by its taste, then a vegan red velvet cake that tastes like a dairy-based red velvet cake can be referred to as a red velvet cake.

Argument mentions that "Though I admit that this vegan ‘red velvet’ cake is indistinguishable in taste"

Now Negate A
If it is defined by taste and taste is indistinguishable then there would be no need to have cream cheese.
the whole argument falls apart
So A is best answer

if we apply prethinking then two assumptions pops up
1. one product can not have two definitions
2. definition defines the name of product

as per these two pre though assumption choice C should be correct

Why is option C not correct since the negation is: Any vegan cake will take the name of its non-vegan counterpart.

Whats the conclusion of author, if there is one. Can anyone explain?

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.
_________________