Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause ser

Question

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties. Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin. When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.

In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat

(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans

(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat

(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning

(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers

ID: 500281

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The passage itself doesn't have a conclusion, but we are trying to select an answer choice that would  help us determine  whether the capsaicin-laced feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale. So we need to select an answer choice that represents information that would help us make that determination. Before we do that, make sure you read the passage carefully and pay close attention to the author's word choice:

"Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria  can  cause serious food poisoning." - The meat from contaminated chickens CAN cause serious food poisoning, but it doesn't ALWAYS cause serious food poisoning. 
 "Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties. Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin." - This tells us that capsaicin MIGHT help fight salmonella bacteria (since it has antibacterial properties). Chickens will readily consume capsaicin. So it would not be hard to get chickens to consume a substance that MIGHT help fight salmonella. 
 "When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella." - Great, so when chickens are fed capsaicin and THEN exposed to salmonella (AFTER ingesting the capsaicin), few of them contracted salmonella. Note that this does not necessary mean that capsaicin will fight salmonella that the chicken already has.

We are trying to decide whether feeding capsaicin to chickens would help us raise salmonella-free chicken  for retail sale . What if meat from chickens that consume capsaicin tastes awful (or just very different than normal chicken meat)? Sure, the meat would be salmonella-free, but if it tastes weird, consumers might not purchase the chicken. In that case, feeding capsaicin to chickens would not be a useful solution for raising chickens for retail sale. But if the chicken meat tastes the same with or without the capsaicin, then this could be an effective solution. Determining whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat would be useful in making the decision, so keep (A).

We are trying to decide whether capsaicin-laced feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chickens for retail sale. In making that decision, we don't care whether capsaicin can be consumed by  humans  to reduce the risk of salmonella. Eliminate (B).

We are not trying to compare chicken meat to other kinds of meat. We are simply trying to determine whether capsaicin-laced feed would help raise salmonella-free chickens. Determining whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat would NOT help, so eliminate (C).

Even if appropriate cooking could prevent food poisoning, that wouldn't help us determine whether capsaicin can help us SELL salmonella-free chickens. True, choice (D) might make this question irrelevant, but you have to stick to what's being asked. We need information that would help us decide whether the capsaicin-laced feed would be useful in RAISING salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, and (D) doesn't help.

We don't care where the capsaicin comes from. All that matters is whether capsaicin-laced feed is an effective solution for raising salmonella-free chickens for retail sale. Choice (E) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

(A) is the best answer.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Its always easier to solve CR questions when you figure out what exactly is the argument saying.

Look at the question stem -  "In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale" 
The argument's conclusion then would be - useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Then I can write the argument as -
 chicken feed laced with capsaicin --> useful in raising salmonella free chicken for retail sale.

Another thing to note is that "Evaluate" questions are hybrids; i.e. they are combination of strengthen and weaken questions. Supplying a yes/no answer to the correct answer choice must weaken/strengthen the conclusion OR strengthen/weaken the conclusion. (supplying yes/no must yield opposite results).
Let us look at the answer choices - 
A - correct answer. Supply a "yes" to the answer option. If the taste of chicken sold is changed, then such meat might not sell well. Weakens the argument. Supply a "no". the meat tastes exactly the same - Strengthens the argument (Sales will not be affected).
B - look the argument written above again. We are evaluating the impact of chicken feed laced with capsaicin on retail sales. The impact of eating capsaicin on humans is irrelevant then.
Let us also try to supply a yes/no the answer option. 
"No" - eating capsaicin does not reduce risk of salmonella in humans. We can say that this slightly strengthens the argument. The "yes" must now weaken the argument.

"Yes" - eating capsaicin reduces risk of salmonella in humans. Does not have any effect on the argument about the usefulness of feeding capsaicin to chickens.
Also, note that since capsaicin has a very hot flavor, this strategy might not work after all.(hence, does not weaken the argument). Another thing - which is easier? consuming capsaicin or feeding it to chickens? If feeding it to chickens is easier than consuming capsaicin, this option does not weaken the argument all.
C - Look at the argument written above. It is concerned only with "chicken meat"; other kinds of meat are not relevant.
D - Supply a "yes" and "no" to this option.
"No" - appropriate cooking can sometimes prevent food poisoning. Slightly strengthens.
"Yes" - appropriate cooking always prevents food poisoning. Does not mean that such chicken meat would not sell well. What if many people do not eat cooked meat? What if feeding capsaicin is the easier and cheaper way to go? What if cooking does not eliminate other harmful effects of salmonella but only eliminates food poisoning? Does not weaken.
E - Not relevant to the argument above. The method of obtaining capsaicin is irrelevant. Unless we know that other methods are substantially more expensive than obtaining capsaicin from chilly peppers.(in which case the price of such meat might be unreasonably expensive). Since, this option requires this additional assumption, it is incorrect.

egmat · Answer

Passage Analysis  
 Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. 
 Salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. So, when meat from chickens contaminated with these bacteria is consumed, it can lead to serious food poisoning.

Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties. 
 Chili peppers which have a hot flavor owe it capsaicin, a chemical that has antibacterial properties.

Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin. 
 Chickens do not have the taste receptors that would help them feel the hot flavor of capsaicin. They readily eat feed that is mixed with capsaicin.

When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella. 
 It was found that when chickens were given capsaicin mixed feed, comparatively very few of them showed salmonella contamination. 
 
(Now the passage itself does not reveal the conclusion. For that we need to analyze the question stem.)

question stem analysis

In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?

Which of the options would be most helpful in deciding that if feed mixed with capsaicin is given to the chicken, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Therefore:
 Conclusion: 
If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to the chicken, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

pre-thinking   
  Falsification question

In what scenario will capsaicin laced feed not be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale?
Given that →Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning
 →capsaicin, a chemical that has antibacterial properties.
 →Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
 →when chickens were given capsaicin mixed feed, comparatively very few of them showed salmonella contamination

Thought Process

Raising chicken for retail sale means selling them for consumption purpose. Obviously, salmonella infected chicken would be a retail failure as it could lead to serious food poisoning. It has been observed that mixing their feed with capsaicin, which has antibacterial properties, has led to a huge reduction in salmonella infection in chicken. And it is believed that this could be useful when raising chicken for retail sale.

Falsification condition#1

What if the chicken meat is rendered inedible when the chicken is raised on feed laced with capsaicin?

Say the capsaicin laced feed is successful in eliminating salmonella. But this process somehow changes the meat taste, makes it tasteless or bitter or acidic, etc. Then we won’t have buyers for such meat. The goal is to raise Salmonella free chicken for retail sale. Hence, any changes that make the chicken unfit for the same could falsify the conclusion.

Assumption#1

The feed laced with capsaicin in no way distracts from the taste of chicken meat or in other words does not cause any adverse changes in the taste of the chicken meat.

Falsification Condition #2

What if most Chickens are infected with Salmonella bacteria relatively early on in their life cycle, before they start eating food that is laced with bacteria?

In that case, giving capsaicin laced feed to the chicken will not work on the already salmonella laced chicken. And our plans of raising salmonella free chicken for retail sail will go up into thin air.

Assumption #2 
 
The chicken which are to be fed with the capsaicin laced feed are not already infected with salmonella.

Answer Choices

Option A

This is absolutely in line with our pre-thinking assumption#1. We really do not need to put this through the variance test because we can clearly see that if it does affect the taste then no one will buy the chicken and retail sale of such chickens will be out of question.

Option B

This is irrelevant to our discussion. We are only concerned with the effect of capsaicin laced feed on chicken and whether they are able to resist salmonella contamination thereafter.
Hence, this is not the correct choice.

Option C

Once again, the findings of this question would not help us in proving the effectiveness of the idea of raising capsaicin fed chicken for retail sale.
Hence, this is not the correct choice.

Option D

This comes into play after the chicken already contaminated with salmonella is sold. We are looking at a picture where we will sell salmonella free chicken and people will buy it. This in fact rules out the necessity of raising salmonella free chicken.
Hence, this choice is incorrect.

Option E

We need capsaicin. Does it matter from where? No. As long as capsaicin helps in raising salmonella free chicken for retail sale, it is enough.
Hence, incorrect choice.

chetan2u · Answer

hi,
the Q has already taken that these are salmonella free chickens, so Choice B doesn't help us at all..

Now given that the chickens are salmonella-free chicken and so they have been eating CAPSAICIN, and also the retail sale is to be increased..

Retail sale would depend on Hygiene, cost and taste.. 
In A, we are given about taste so its OK..

May be a CHOICE talking of increase in PRICE due to use of a particular diet-- couold be also a reason if a part of choices..

AnirudhaS · Answer

I'm not convinced with why D is not the answer. Can anyone help please?  GMATNinja

We are trying to figure out whether a specific  feed  would help raise chicken for  retail purposes .
A special type of feed would most definitely cost more, so it would only be used if it is absolutely essential. According to the passage meat CAN cause serious illness and capsaisin MIGHT help kill the bacteria. So even if we use capsaisin feed there is no guarantee that it would work. So why would we use a special feed?

You can say that I am making an assumption that the special feed will cost more, it is nowhere explicitly expressed in the passage. Fair enough, but if you are selecting option A you are also making an assumption that people will not compromise taste of the meat. What if I say people are only worried about the nutritional benefits of the meat, the taste does not matter at all?

Now D suggests if there is a way of cooking chicken, so that the bacteria is killed anyways. Well there you have it. We go for standard feed. No need for the fancy capsaisin feed.

GMATNinja · Answer

Going down this path will only create more doubt, because anyone can whip up "what if" interpretations for any answer choice, and consequently never end up with a confident answer. The way to resolve your doubt is to return to the question and be precise about what information we'll need to answer it:

We weren't asked which answer choice  proves  that capsaicin-laced feed is useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale. 
  We weren't asked which answer choice is most helpful in determining whether the feed  is necessary or not for consumers to prevent food poisoning . 
  We were asked which answer choice is  most helpful  in determining whether the feed   would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale  .

These are three different inquiries that send us looking for different data to resolve them.

It could very well be that the feed is extremely useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, while  simultaneously  being totally unnecessary for consumers to prevent food poisoning via chicken. Likewise, data that tells us how consumers can prevent food poisoning could tell us absolutely nothing about the impact of capsaicin-laced feed.

That's why we eliminate choice (D). It says absolutely nothing about  the feed  and its impact on raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Choice (A), on the other hand, directly addresses  how  the feed could impact raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, by providing new data about a  potential  side-effect of feeding capsaicin to chickens.

As you've pointed out, and as I've written in my prior explanation, choice (A) does NOT give us a ton of data one way or the other. We still don't know whether the effect on taste is negative, we don't know whether consumers care about the effect on taste, and we don't know whether consumer care about taste more or less than risk of food poisoning.

But choice (A) does give us more data than we started with to answer the question. And most importantly, choice (A) provides the right TYPE of data for knowing whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

That's why (A) is a much better choice than (D), even if (A) doesn't do that much to improve the argument for using capsaicin-laced feed.

I hope this helps clarify!

Bikramjit91 · Answer

Understanding the passage

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. 
• When meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria is consumed, it can lead to severe food poisoning.
 Capsaicin, the chemical that gives chili peppers their hot flavor, has antibacterial properties.
 • Capsaicin is a chemical present in chili peppers. It is what gives chili peppers their hot flavor.
• Capsaicin has antibacterial properties.
 Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
 • Chickens do not have the taste receptors that would help them feel the hot flavor of capsaicin. 
• Chickens readily consume feed that is mixed with capsaicin.
 When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.
 • Chickens are given capsaicin mixed feed so that the antibacterial properties of capsaicin will eliminate the salmonella bacteria.
• When chickens were fed feed mixed with capsaicin and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, it was found that very few of these chickens were contaminated with salmonella.
Since there is no conclusion in the passage, we will analyze the question stem to find the conclusion.

Question:  In deciding whether the feed would be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?
The question asks us to pick the options that will help us decide if feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens; it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Conclusion:  If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens, it will be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Scenario

In what scenario  -  If feed mixed with capsaicin is given to chickens, it will   NOT   be useful in raising salmonella-free chicken for retail sale.

Given that:  
(i) Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause severe food poisoning.
(ii) Capsaicin is a chemical that has antibacterial properties.
(iii) Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin.
(iv) Among the chickens that consumed feed laced with capsaicin, very few of them showed salmonella contamination.

Thought Process

Chickens with salmonella contamination would not sell because consuming contaminated chicken meat will lead to severe food poisoning. It has been observed that feed mixed with capsaicin, which has antibacterial properties, when given to /chickens, resulted in a reduction in the number of chickens with salmonella contamination. Therefore, the author concludes that raising salmonella-free chickens for sale will be useful.

Falsification condition 1:  What if the chicken meat becomes inedible when chickens are raised on feed laced with capsaicin?
In this scenario, if capsaicin in the chicken feed renders the meat inedible, then people who consume chicken meat will not buy salmonella-free chicken, and the retail sale will not increase.
This scenario would break the author's conclusion.

Assumption 1:  Feed laced with capsaicin does not alter or degrade the taste of the chicken meat.

Falsification condition 2:  What if chickens are already infected with salmonella before feed laced with capsaicin is given to them?
If chickens were contaminated before the feed laced with capsaicin was given to them, then the chickens will not be salmonella free and would not increase the retail sale. Thus, the author's conclusion will break.

Assumption 2:  Chickens, which are given feed laced with capsaicin, are not already infected with salmonella.

Answer choice analyses

(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat  CORRECT 
• This option is directly in line with our pre-thinking assumption 1.
•  Variance test 
o Yes - feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat.
o This case weakens our belief in the conclusion.
o No - feeding capsaicin to chickens does not affect the taste of their meat.
o This case strengthens our belief in the conclusion.

(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans  INCORRECT 
• This option is irrelevant because the passage is concerned with the effects of capsaicin laced feed on chicken and whether the chickens become salmonella free or not.

(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat  INCORRECT 
• This information will not affect the conclusion. Therefore, this choice is also irrelevant.

(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning  INCORRECT

• The passage talks about raising salmonella-free chickens that would be useful for the retail sale of chicken. The cooking of chicken will come after people buy chicken, so this information is out of scope.

(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers  INCORRECT 
• The passage talks about capsaicin that is used for lacing chicken feed. The passage does not specify that capsaicin from chili peppers can only be used to lace chicken feed. Thus, the source of capsaicin is not relevant.

BhaveshGMAT · Answer

The stimulus is related to food poisoning and how to prevent it. I picked incorrect answer option D even though I had genuine doubts.

Before moving other answer options, I stopped for a moment on Answer Choice A. But then, I thought there is a disconnect between stimulus and the answer choice as the taste of meat was not mentioned in the stimulus and I might be assuming too much. This led me to reject answer choice A.

My question is - what if people are not at all bothered with taste? Also, it makes sense to prioritise bacterial resistance over taste, if there is no other way out. Are not we assuming a bit too much with answer option A?

Please help  GMATNinja !!

GMATNinja · Answer

Imagine that you are a chicken farmer who raises chicken for retail sale , as specified in the question. Someone tells you that if you lace chicken feed with capsaicin, the chickens will be less likely to become contaminated with salmonella. Sounds great, right? But wait... capsaicin is the thing that gives chili peppers their hot flavor . Wouldn't you worry about whether this chemical will impact the taste of the chicken that you're trying to sell? Sure, there's no guarantee that people would dislike the chicken, even if it tasted different. And you're right, maybe reducing salmonella is still important! But before you start feeding all of your chickens capsaicin, it would be helpful to know whether the flavor of the product will change, so you can anticipate how it would impact your sales. While knowing the answer to (A) might not completely change your mind, it would certainly weigh into your decision about whether to feed your chickens capsaicin. So, (A) is still a helpful question to answer. (A) is the correct answer choice. Mmm... spicy chicken.

I hope that helps!

Dinesh654 · Answer

Hello experts,
first of all argument talked all about chickens with Salmonella virus- 
The question is- whether the feed would be useful in raising  salmonella-free chicken  for retail sale
1. In A- Isn't it important that even for retail sale, chickens should be  free of salmonella .
this choice tells only about taste, wheather chikens are free of bacteria, nobody knows.
and it is a part of question stem.

2.for a second, for a yes/ No answer- if yes, taste is affected- if taste becomes better then its usuefull. if taste is bad its not useful.

if the answer is NO- the taste is not useful.
even for a Yes, we have two choices!

3. for choice B, If capsicum reduces the risk of the bacteria poisonin. then isn't it ok to sell the chicken for retail? That is basic, taste is secondary.

GMATNinja · Answer

Another user asked the same question about (A), which we addressed in  this post  -- check it out and let us know if you have any further questions.

Take another look at the exact wording of (B):
 
(B) talks about what happens when  humans  eat capsaicin. That doesn't play into the argument at all, which hinges on what happens when  chickens  eat capsaicin.

Eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

stm579 · Answer

I think A or D could be correct depending on what you assume in the background... What is wrong with what I wrote below?

For A: If feeding capsaicin has no impact on taste, then sure, makes sense to proceed, because the product solves one problem (less likely to make you ill) without changing the taste. But if feeding capsaicin does impact taste, then the assumption we need to make for this to be the correct answer is that a change in taste is a bad thing (which I think is a bit of a leap). The change in taste could also be a good thing (e.g. some people like this new chicken maybe because it is spicy)... So a change in taste doesn't help us determine whether the demand for the special chicken will be high or low.

For D: If cooking doesn't always prevent food poisoning, then makes sense to proceed, because the product solves one problem (less likely to make you ill) - and could be marketed as such. But if cooking chicken always prevents you from getting food poisoning from eating chicken, then if we make the fairly reasonable assumption that people cook chicken properly before they eat it (to prevent themselves from getting ill), then we could deduce that the new product is not required and so people have no reason to buy it... If we don't make this assumption - i.e. maybe people always cook chicken properly or maybe they don't - then knowing the fact that cooking chicken prevents food poisoning doesn't help us determine how high/low the demand will be for the special chicken which is less likely to make you ill if not cooked properly. Hence it seems like D just as good/bad as A is. I guess another assumption I made for D is that taste is irrelevant. So maybe that's why A is better.

Help!

(Side note: the GMAT is making me question whether every question I write is correct English or not.. which is slowly driving me insane)

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

stm579

The trouble with D is that it doesn't address the conclusion at hand, but rather, another concern one might reasonably have. This is a common pattern in trap answers.

Our job is to assess this plan in terms of its help in raising salmonella-free chickens for sale. To do this, we do not need to consider whether that goal is a worthy one. Similarly, in trying to figure out how to improve your GMAT score, I don't need to consider whether you ought to attend business school. That's for you to decide, and doesn't have any impact on how to get the score.

desertEagle · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KarishmaB   AndrewN   Sajjad1994

A says

In evaluate questions such as this one one must get different answer if the answers are yes or no. In answer No to this question, it is readily observed that it will not affect the retail sale.

But here in this question we have two options even in Yes. 
You are right in stating that if taste of meat deteriorates it will affect the retail.

However, what if taste becomes better, that is also a change in taste and that is a Positive change. And may be equal number or more people buy it. Then what.

How can we assume that Yes means worse taste. Kindly explain

GMATNinja · Answer

The question asks us which option would be "most helpful" in determining whether to use the new feed. That's different than asking for something that proves whether farmers should use the feed. So, we aren't necessarily looking for something that would 100% determine the course of action -- it's enough to find an answer choice that is more helpful than the other ones. With that in mind, I'll steal from our previous post on this: Imagine that you are a chicken farmer who raises chicken for retail sale, as specified in the question. Someone tells you that if you lace chicken feed with capsaicin, the chickens will be less likely to become contaminated with salmonella. Sounds great, right? But wait... capsaicin is the thing that gives chili peppers their hot flavor. Wouldn't you worry about whether this chemical will impact the taste of the chicken that you're trying to sell? Sure, there's no guarantee that people would dislike the chicken, even if it tasted different. But before you start feeding all of your chickens capsaicin, it would be helpful to know whether the flavor of the product will change, so you can anticipate how it would impact your sales. While knowing the answer to (A) might not completely change your mind, it would certainly weigh into your decision about whether to feed your chickens capsaicin. So, (A) is still a helpful question to answer. (A) is the correct answer choice. Mmm... spicy chicken.

I hope that helps!

PeachSnapple1 · Answer

Side/fun question:
B states    
If we eat a chicken that eats capsaicin, is it valid to say that we eat capsaicin ourselves?
Because if that was the case, B might have some valid points (but I agree it's not a correct choice even then, because we know for a fact from a prompt that chickens that eat capsaicin are less likely to have salmonella. In other words, we know that capsaicin is effective in chicken).
- If eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans --> the argument might be strengthened, but we still need to know about other factors (taste for instance)
- If eating capsaicin DOES NOT reduce the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans --> well, then that's a good thing, because luckily the chickens eat the capsaicin for us, and we know for a fact that chickens that eat capsaicin are less likely to have salmonella.
So either way, both yes/no answers to B strengthen the argument at best.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Short answer: no. We can't assume that a substance chickens eat is preserved in their meat. We can't assume much in the way of scientific knowledge, and in real-life terms, many (I'd assume most) organic compounds that an animal eats are broken down and/or excreted, rather than stored intact in muscle and fat tissue.

PeachSnapple1 · Answer

That's an interesting take not gonna lie. As sometimes when I want my dog to take the med, I need to trick him by crushing the med and mixing it in his favorites snack. But I guess in that case the med is preserved in its entirety, only in different form. Now that I think about it, I bet my parents used the same trick on me when I was a child...

KarishmaB · Answer

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause serious food poisoning. 
Capsaicin has antibacterial properties. 
Chickens do not have taste receptors for capsaicin and will readily eat feed laced with capsaicin. 
When chickens were fed such feed and then exposed to salmonella bacteria, relatively few of them became contaminated with salmonella.

The argument tells us that chicken can get contaminated by salmonella which causes serious food poisoning among humans. When chickens ingest Capsaicin (which they have no trouble in ingesting), they become more immune to salmonella.

So the author's question is: Can we raise salmonella free chicken for retail by feeding them Capsaicin? Is it viable to feed capsaicin to chickens and hence raise salmonella free chickens to sell?

What will help us answer this?
  
(A) Whether feeding capsaicin to chickens affects the taste of their meat

Whether it is viable or not depends on whether the taste of the chicken changes. If it does, people may not buy it anymore and hence we cannot raise chickens for selling by feeding them capsaicin. If it doesn't change the taste of meat, then it could be viable. If the point were only that we needed the chickens to be salmonella free, then capsaicin seems to be a good option. But they are to be raised for sale. Then we must see whether the sale will be affected by feeding them capsaicin.

(B) Whether eating capsaicin reduces the risk of salmonella poisoning for humans

Irrelevant. The point is - can we raise salmonella free chicken for selling by feeding them capsaicin? How humans can reduce their risk, doesn't matter.

(C) Whether chicken is more prone to salmonella contamination than other kinds of meat

Irrelevant. No such comparison discussed in the argument.

(D) Whether appropriate cooking of chicken contaminated with salmonella can always prevent food poisoning

Irrelevant. We are trying to raise salmonella free chicken. What to do if the chicken do have salmonella is not our concern in this argument. The point is that can the chicken be salmonella-free at the time of sale?

(E) Whether capsaicin can be obtained only from chili peppers

Source of getting capsaicin is irrelevant.

Answer (A)

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause ser

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

Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause ser

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