bugzor wrote:
I chose A.
B says 1/2 who ordered alcohol ate more, but 1/2 who didn't ate more as well. This doesn't help us at all.
for C, mahendru1992 is correct. In the passage it states alcohol being prominently displayed makes people eat more, but in C it says the opposite-- that while alcohol was prominently displayed, patrons ate less.
D and E are out of scope
The answer is (C).
The question is a replica of an
OG question. (tips has been replaced by eat more and credit card logo has been replaced by alcohol). Check:
q14-studies-in-restaurants-show-that-the-tips-left-by-21313.html#p140124Here is the explanation modified to suit this question:
Argument: Studies show that in restaurants where alcohol is on display patrons are more likely to eat more food.
Why would that be? Why would there be a difference when alcohol is displayed?
Psychologists' hypothesize that seeing alcohol reminds people that they are having fun and they relax i.e. seeing alcohol has an effect on people.
We have to support the psychologists' interpretation.
Say, I change the argument a little and add a line:
Argument: Studies show that in restaurants where alcohol is on display patrons are more likely to eat more food, even if
they don’t purchase alcohol. Patrons who deliberately restrict their alcohol intake tend to eat less when alcohol is prominently displayed than
when it is not.
Now, does the psychologists' interpretation make even more sense. Understand that the psychologists' interpretation is only that 'seeing alcohol has effect on people'. The part 'they are reminded that they are participating in leisure activities and hence relax' explains the 'eating more'. If we are given that some eat less on seeing alcohol and some eat more on seeing it, it makes sense, right? Different people have different reactions to alcohol. Hence, people react differently to alcohol and eat accordingly. Hence, option (C) makes the probability of psychologists' interpretation being true stronger because it tells you that in case of restricted intake, customers eat less. This is what you would expect if the psychologists' interpretation were correct.
It's something like this:
Me: After 12 hrs of night time sleep, I can't study.
Your theory: Yeah, because your sleep pattern is linked to your level of concentration. After a long sleep, your mind is still muddled and lazy so you cant study.
Me: After 4 hrs of night time sleep, I can't study either.
Does your theory make more sense? Sure! You said 'sleep pattern is linked to your level of concentration'. If I sleep too much, my concentration gets affected. If I sleep too little, again my concentration gets affected. So your theory that 'sleep pattern is linked to your level of concentration' certainly makes more sense.
Hence, C is correct.
Other options:
A - Not correct. As pointed out above, ordering food is not the same as eating food. +1 to umeshpatil for pulling out that
OG question. People may order more but they may not be relaxed enough to eat more of it.
B - Out of scope. The argument does not have anything to do with 'ordering alcohol'. It is all about 'looking at alcohol' and 'eating food'.
Similarly, D and E are also out of scope.
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep