Studies show that in restaurants where alcohol is on display patrons

IMO C.

If A then B: A- Alcohol reminds people of leisure activity and they relax. B- They eat more.
If Not A then Not B: NOT A - Alcohol reminds people of restriction thus, making then uneasy NOT B- They eat less.

Thus, it takes other possibility out of equation and strengthens the conclusion.

IMO: C


Option (A)
"Patrons of bars who sit facing the alcohol are more likely to order food than those who do not."

My understanding about this argument as below:
A: Looking alcohol bottles
B: Feeling of Leisure activity
C: Eat too much in relaxed manner.
Premises: A->B, B ->C,
Conclusion: A->C
Option(A) tells people who look at alcohol order more food. It doesn't tell whether people eat too or not ? So, It can't be answer.

Option (C)

"Patrons who deliberately restrict their alcohol intake tend to eat less when alcohol is prominently displayed than when it is not."

When Alcohol is displayed,
Argument: People who drink look at alcohol bottles, feel relaxed and eat too much.
Option (C): People who don't drink, eat less when alcohol is displayed than when it is not displayed.

It means, Display of alcohol has made an effect over the minds of people who drink. So, This option strengthens this given argument.

I agree that its cause and effect reasonong question but i cant understand why people are referring C as correct answer choice.

C: Patrons who deliberately restrict their alcohol intake tend to eat less when alcohol is prominently displayed than when it is not.<<It says people who restrict their alcohol intake
its no where discussed in the argument, the argument lays emphasis on the display of the alcohol and not its consumption...I my opinion its a trap...

Its a tough pick between A and B

B: In half of the cases studied, the patrons who ate more did not order alcohol<< States they did not order alcohol, they felt as if they were participating in leisure activities just by looking at the display and hence ate more food>> Biggest problem with this option it leaves a gap for the other 50% of people. Hence felt to reject the answer...............

I would like to go with A, though ordering the food doesn't mean eating the food.

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. Psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing alcohol makes patrons more likely to
eat because the presence of alcohol reminds people that they are participating in leisure activities and they
relax their behavior accordingly.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the studies?

A: Patrons of bars who sit facing the alcohol are more likely to order food than those who do not.
B: In half of the cases studied, the patrons who ate more did not order alcohol
C: Patrons who deliberately restrict their alcohol intake tend to eat less when alcohol is prominently displayed than
when it is not.
D: Generally, those who consume alcohol during dinner leave larger tips than those who do not.
E: If an alcoholic beverage is prominently displayed within a restaurant, sales of that beverage will increase

IMO, it is A.

Also ordering food is to eat it. As with the other quoted example tipping more is different than paying more.

Hi nanishora, Archit143
For example, you entered into the restaurant with your kids. Whatever you order, do you eat everything ? No. You may order it for your family. So, Ordering food is different than eating (as per GMAT also). If you have studied OG 12, you may remember a similar assumption question below.



If you understand, answer to above question is A, Similar logic should work in given question. That is why A can not be answer here

Study is carried out with conditions that 1) people drink alcohol 2) Alcohol is displayed and people are able to view it. Study can be strengthened if we prove outcome is false when any of the conditions is not present. For example, When people sitting in the restaurant do not drink, would they feel themselves in leisure? would they eat more. Here we are strengthening that people are eating more only after looking at the alcohol and their sense of feeling after looking at it.


About option (B) In half of the outcomes falsify the result, so it doesn't help to prove anything. It an option to confuse us

May be you are correct but terming those who have deliberately restricted as non drinkers is incorrect as deliberate means something which is done consciously. The whole option can also be re written as "People who restrict their drinking habit eat less when alcohol is prominently displayed" we have to strengthen that when drinkers see the alcohol bottles they fyl relaxed and eat more but option C states when People who deliberately restrict their drinking (who are drinkers) eat less when alcohol is prominently displayed, its contradictory they should have eaten more as they after seeing the bottles they will feel restrict.

A non drinker will not deliberately restrict its drinking as he is a non drinker. There is no need to restrict since he does not drinks.....

Archit,
+1 Kudos. Framing of it may be wrong. I wrote it such because I am non-drinker and restrict drinking along with my friends
At the end, individual framing is always different. So the understanding the argument should be the prime motive.

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#p140124

Here 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.

Hello,

Can someone post the OA for this question? Thank you!

________________
Added the OA. It's C.

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.