For new restaurant managers, a number of organizations offer food

Question

For new restaurant managers, a number of organizations offer food-safety certification courses. Although people can manage a restaurant without having taken such a course, the courses are effective in promoting safe food-handling practices. Their effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that about a third of restaurant managers have taken such a course; only eight percent of restaurants cited for serious health-code violations are managed by someone who has done so.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the force of the support offered for the effectiveness of the courses?

A. It is more difficult to maintain food safety in large restaurants than in small ones.

B. New restaurant managers who are most likely to take a food-safety course are those who already have several years of experience working in restaurants.

C. The various food-safety courses that are available differ considerably in both the material they cover and the amount of hands-on training they require.

D. Most serious health-code violations involve improper food storage rather than poor cooking techniques.

E. In terms of hours worked per week and number of meals served annually, managers who have taken a food-safety course are no different from those who have not.

MartyMurray · Answer

For new restaurant managers, a number of organizations offer food-safety certification courses. Although people can manage a restaurant without having taken such a course, the courses are effective in promoting safe food-handling practices. Their effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that about a third of restaurant managers have taken such a course; only eight percent of restaurants cited for serious health-code violations are managed by someone who has done so.

Conclusion of the argument:

the courses are effective in promoting safe food-handling practices

Support for the conclusion:

about a third of restaurant managers have taken such a course; only eight percent of restaurants cited for serious health-code violations are managed by someone who has done so

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since only a small percentage of restaurants cited for serious health-code violations are managed by someone who has taken a safety certification course, the courses are effective in promoting safe practices.

So, there is a negative correlation between managers' taking the course and violations.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the force of the support offered for the effectiveness of the courses?

The correct answer to this Strengthen question will help the evidence to support the conclusion.

A. It is more difficult to maintain food safety in large restaurants than in small ones.

This comparative information has no effect on the strength of the argument since the argument does not connect frequency of violations with restaurant size.

Eliminate.

B. New restaurant managers who are most likely to take a food-safety course are those who already have several years of experience working in restaurants.

This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the case for the conclusion.

After all, if managers most likely to take a safety course are those who already have several years of experience, then it could be that the reason why restaurants managed by these people tend not to be cited is not that the courses are effective but, rather, that the managers are experienced.

So, this choice undermines the support for the conclusion by indicating that there could be another cause for the observed pattern.

Eliminate.

C. The various food-safety courses that are available differ considerably in both the material they cover and the amount of hands-on training they require.

This fact that the courses differ doesn't mean that they are effective.

Eliminate.

D. Most serious health-code violations involve improper food storage rather than poor cooking techniques.

A restaurant manager would presumably oversee both food storage and cooking.

So, this information doesn't indicate one way or the other whether the courses are effective.

Eliminate.

E. In terms of hours worked per week and number of meals served annually, managers who have taken a food-safety course are no different from those who have not.

This choice is interesting.

After all, it removes other variables that could affect the number of heath-code violations a restaurant is cited for, the number of hours a manager works and the volume of meals served by a restaurant.

So, this choice indicates that, with other variables controlled for, restaurants whose managers have taken a course still tend to be cited less.

Thus, this choice helps to confirm that the courses are effective by eliminating the possibility that a different cause could be responsible for the observed pattern.

Keep.

Correct answer:   E

guddo · Answer

For new restaurant managers, a number of organizations offer food-safety certification courses. Although people can manage a restaurant without having taken such a course, the courses are effective in promoting safe food-handling practices. Their effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that about a third of restaurant managers have taken such a course; only eight percent of restaurants cited for serious health-code violations are managed by someone who has done so.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the force of the support offered for the effectiveness of the courses?

The argument uses the low percentage of violations among course-trained managers as evidence that the courses are effective.  To strengthen this evidence , we want to rule out an alternative explanation, such as trained managers simply working in restaurants with less workload or fewer chances for violations.

A. It is more difficult to maintain food safety in large restaurants than in small ones.

This does not help unless we know whether trained managers are more or less likely to manage large restaurants.

B. New restaurant managers who are most likely to take a food-safety course are those who already have several years of experience working in restaurants.

This weakens the support. It suggests the lower violation rate may be due to prior experience, not the course.

C. The various food-safety courses that are available differ considerably in both the material they cover and the amount of hands-on training they require.

This weakens or at least complicates the argument, because it makes the courses less uniform.

D. Most serious health-code violations involve improper food storage rather than poor cooking techniques.

This does not strengthen the evidence unless we know the courses effectively teach proper food storage.

E. In terms of hours worked per week and number of meals served annually, managers who have taken a food-safety course are no different from those who have not.

This is correct. It rules out the idea that trained managers have fewer violations simply because they work less or oversee fewer meals. So the lower violation rate is more likely due to the courses’ effect on  safe food-handling practices .

Answer: (E)

Reshab · Answer

I feel the correct answer is B.

Option B eliminates an alternative explanation (or a potential flaw) known in logic as a "self-selection bias".If managers who take the course are already highly experienced, the lower violation rate might just be due to their years of experience rather than the certification. However, Option B explicitly states that the ones who take the course already have several years of experience. This establishes that the trained managers have the same prior experience as their untrained counterparts. By ruling out the possibility that prior experience is the only reason for the better performance, this fact isolates the food-safety course itself as the clear driving force behind the drastically lower violation rate.

A, C, D: These introduce extraneous factors (restaurant size, course content, type of violation) that do not help compare the performance of managers who have taken the course against those who have not

E: While this option does confirm that the two groups of managers share similar working conditions, Option B directly strengthens the specific argument about the cause of the improved performance.

guddo · Answer

B does not eliminate self-selection bias; it creates it.

B says the managers most likely to take the course already have several years of restaurant experience. That means the lower violation rate may be due to prior experience, not to the course itself. So  B gives an alternative explanation  for the observed pattern and weakens the argument.

E is correct because it removes a relevant alternative explanation: trained managers are not working fewer hours or serving fewer meals. So their restaurants are not simply facing fewer chances for violations. That makes the course itself a more plausible explanation for the  lower violation rate .

To check the official answer, please see the original post under the spoiler link labeled “Show Answer.” For a more detailed explanation, please review the two solutions already provided above.

RoundCode · Answer

Can someone clarify where my logic is wrong for D? My logic is that this answer choice explains that violations were primarily a result of improper food storage rather than poor cooking techniques. The passage says that courses are effective in promoting safe food handling practices which we can presume that safe food handling practices involve food storage but not poor cooking techniques. I believe its reasonable to presume that food handling is separate from cooking techniques. So by telling us that most violations are from improper food storage, this fact connects that taking courses led to lower violations. So D would indeed strengthen the argument that the courses are effective.

guddo · Answer

I’d say your interpretation of “food handling” as including storage is reasonable. The problem is that  (D) still does not connect the courses to better food storage .

(D) tells us only  what most violations involve . It does not tell us that the courses teach proper storage particularly well, or that trained managers commit fewer storage violations because of the courses.

(E) is stronger because it directly removes an alternative explanation for the lower violation rate. Trained and untrained managers have comparable workloads, so the difference in violations is more plausibly due to the courses.

egmat · Answer

Hi RoundCode,

I can see exactly why D felt right, and your instinct about "food handling" is reasonable. The problem is what D actually does to the argument's link, so let's zoom in on that.

Remember what the support is: about a third of managers took a course, but course-takers make up only  8%  of the violation-cited restaurants. That's a  comparison  - course-takers vs. everyone else. To strengthen it, a choice has to tell us something that makes the course itself the reason for that gap.

Now look at D:  "Most serious health-code violations involve improper food storage rather than poor cooking techniques."  This describes  all  violations, at  every  restaurant - course-taker and non-course-taker alike. It tells you the  type  of violation that's common, but it says nothing about why the two groups differ. Even if  100%  of violations were storage-related, that fact is identical for both groups, so it can't explain the  8%  figure.

Here's the hidden move in your reasoning: you had to assume the courses  do a good job teaching storage . But that - the courses being effective - is exactly the conclusion we're trying to support. So D only "works" if you first grant the thing you're supposed to prove. That's circular, which is why MartyMurray flagged that a manager oversees both storage and cooking either way.

Try this quick parallel to feel the gap:

Claim: a vitamin prevents illness, because vitamin-takers get sick far less than others. New fact: "Most illnesses are respiratory rather than digestive."

Does that strengthen the vitamin claim? No - it tells you the  kind  of illness that's common, but nothing about why vitamin-takers get sick less. That's D. Contrast it with E, which removes an actual alternative cause (course-takers aren't just running quieter, lower-volume kitchens) - that's what genuinely tightens the link.

Answer: E

For new restaurant managers, a number of organizations offer food

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

For new restaurant managers, a number of organizations offer food

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards