weiwang922 wrote:
Bunuel GMATNinja carouselambra , I came down between A and E, and the explanation provided here is not convincing. Can you please explain.
My understanding for A is that the restaurants made it healthier, but there are still addictive in the food. However, what is wrong with being addicted to good and healthy food?
E - items didn't change, but the ingredient got healthier. However, who is to say what it means to have "healthier ingredient?" what if the healthier ingredient is still bad for your body?
Hence, I chose E. Please correct me.
Let's break the argument down for you.
The CEO of a major fast-food chain just released a statement indicating that the chain has revamped its ingredient list and
revised its menu options so that all selections on the menu are now healthier than any of the menus from competing fast-food chains. Among the changes that will be made, the fast-food chain will be
eliminating unsaturated fats and downsizing portions. He claims, "We've heard the
request of our customers for
healthier meals, and with the changes we're making we'll be offering our customers
better choices. Our customers will now have
healthy fast-food options that put all other fast-food chains to shame."
To weaken : Prove that the restaurant is actually NOT offering better choices.
Let's look at both the options
A. While the fast-food chain is improving certain ingredients, they are still including additives that tend to make customers addicted to the fast food.
Keeping in mind the "kind" of statement we need to weaken the argument, try relating this with the argument now. Doesn't this weaken the argument?
If the fast-food chain is STILL including substances that tend to attract customers to fast food, the conclusion gets negated as the chain has proudly claimed that :
1. They were offering better/healthier choices
2. They will put all other fast-food chains to shame (there was an assumption that the other chains were not serving healthier options)
So,if the fast-food chain is including additives, the above points automatically cancel out.
Now, option (E)
The fast-food chain has
not removed many of its previous menu items but has instead simply
replaced the unhealthy ingredients with healthier options and reduced the portion sizes.
Two things - Where in the passage has it been mentioned that the food chain would "remove" the previous items?
Passage says:
chain has revamped its ingredient list and revised its menu optionsThis automatically makes (E) a weak contender. Even otherwise, how does this option assure that audience will not prefer this kind of fast food after amendments and this in turn will make them healthier? This option merely supports the claim. It does not weaken the conclusion.
Remember to focus on the CONCLUSION only.
Cheers