Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantari

Question

Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantaria. Customers at these restaurants tend to be young; in fact, studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants. Since the average age of the Canatrian population is gradually rising and will continue to do so, the number of fast-food restaurants is likely to decrease.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers.

(B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.

(C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants.

(D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily.

(E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home.

Fast-Food Demographics

Step 1: Identify the Question

The wording weakens the argument in the question stem indicates that this is a  Weaken the Argument  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

FF = 45% of restaurants in C

FF customers: mostly young; getting older → less FF

C pop. getting older

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

In a Weaken problem, the right answer will make the conclusion less likely to be true. In this case, the right answer will show that the number of fast food restaurants in Canatria may not decrease in the future. Either there will be   more fast food customers than expected  , or a decline in the number of customers will not cause a decline in the number of restaurants.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This actually strengthens the argument. According to the argument, the number of customers is likely to decrease, and this answer choice does nothing to disprove that. In addition, if fast food restaurants are growing larger, even fewer restaurants will be needed to serve the dwindling number of customers.

(B) Even if some older people frequently eat at fast food restaurants, there’s no way to know whether this happens often enough to make up for the overall decline. The argument also specifies that in general,  older people are less likely to eat in fast food restaurants . This indicates that even if some older people frequently eat fast food, the general trend is for older people to eat less fast food than younger people.

(C) The conclusion deals specifically with fast food restaurants. In order to weaken the conclusion, an answer choice would have to suggest that the number of fast food restaurants will stay the same or increase. The fact that many regular fast food customers also eat in other restaurants is not related to the number of fast food restaurants.

(D) CORRECT . The argument suggests that a smaller proportion of Canatrians will eat at fast food restaurants in the future due to an aging population. However, if there are more people in Canatria in total, there may well be more people eating at fast food restaurants even if the proportion decreases. If 50% of 1000 Canatrians currently eat at fast food restaurants, and 40% of 2000 Canatrians will eat at fast food restaurants in 10 years, the proportion will have decreased but the total number will have grown. Thus, the number of fast food restaurants will not necessarily decrease.

(E) This answer strengthens the conclusion. With fewer people eating out, fast food restaurants will likely have fewer customers, and fewer fast food restaurants will be needed.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Even if  some  older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person, it wouldn't change the evidence on which the argument is based: "Customers at these restaurants  tend  to be young; in fact, studies have shown that the older people get, the  less likely  they are to eat in fast-food restaurants."

This evidence only suggests that older people are less likely to eat in fast-food restaurants and does not suggest that ALL older people eat at fast-food restaurants less frequently than the average young person. Statement (B) does not interfere with the author's argument and can be eliminated.

I hope that helps!

Divyadisha · Answer

Conclusion says Since the average age of the Canatrian population is gradually rising and will continue to do so, the number of fast-food restaurants is likely to decrease.

In order to weaken this, we could find below points:-
1) Young people who start eating fast food continue doing same even when they get old.
2) Young people are also increasing with the increase in Old population.

A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers.  Not concerned about number of customers.

B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.  'Some' and not 'All'

C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants.  Not concerned about other restaurants.

D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily. That means young people are also growing .  Correct answer

E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home.  Will they eat at fast-food chain is our concern.

Kurtosis · Answer

Younger people eat in fastfood. Average age of current population is increasing - Number of fastfood restaurants will decrease

Possible weakener: As the current population ages, younger people are added to the population

A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers. - Incorrect - Out of context. We are not bothered about the increase in capacity of fast food restaurants.

B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants. - Incorrect - Strengthens

D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily. - Correct

E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home. - Incorrect - Supports the argument

Answer: D

ynk · Answer

A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers.--No mention of no. of customers a restaurant can serve. Eliminate 
B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.--Some people cannot help to weaken the argument. Eliminate .
C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants.--Restaurants are out of scope.only fast food restaurants is under consideration. Eliminate 
D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily. --Ok.If population is growing that means more births to new child.i.e more youths in near future. Perfect 
E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home.--This actually strengthens the argument. Eliminate

RichaChampion · Answer

Number & Percentages  are two different things.
 Percentages  are actually numbers expressed on the scale of 100.

In various problems, they use number and percentages interchangeably to create a  RIGHT  or  WRONG  solution.

20% 100 < 5%1000  
 
Fast-food restaurants make up  45  percent of all restaurants in Cantaria. Customers at these restaurants tend to be young; in fact, studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants. Since the average age of the Canatrian population is gradually rising and will continue to do so, the number of fast-food restaurants is likely to decrease.

The argument is saying that since the average age is gradually rising that means that the %age of older people is increasing and the percentage of young people is decreasing from  45% . Therefore the number of fast foods restaurant is likely to decrease.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

The existence or Presence or Survival of Fast Food restaurants depends on upon a minimum number of people who belong to the young age, but as the argument says that this %age is decreasing, therefore a lesser number of Young people.

CURRENT STATUS = 45% OF CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION = CERTAIN CURRENT NUMBER
 
But, The percentage in red is decreasing? Then how can we maintain the same number of young people?

As we discussed above with sample space - 20% 100 < 5%1000

(45-X)% OF FUTURE TOTAL POPULATION ≥ 45% OF CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION
 
Where,
  FUTURE TOTAL POPULATION > CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION  - This is what option D says.

MackayMcCoy · Answer

Dear Experts, please assist me here: Isn't Option B valid? Although it states that "Some" older people eat more frequently than the younger people, the statement still attacks the conclusion made by the author! Although option B says "Some", the option is still strong enough to arrest the decrease of the fast food restaurants

scarlatti · Answer

I have a problem with D. Just because Canatria´s population increased, it doesn´t mean that the number of young people in Canatria will increase, since that same increase in the population could have been due to immigration for example, and we can´t say that immigrants are young.

GMATNinja · Answer

Vyshak , it's true that choice (D)  might  not weaken the argument. We can think of scenarios, like the one you described, in which choice (D) would have no effect. But remember that we are looking for an answer choice that  most  seriously weakens the argument, not an answer choice that  definitely  weakens the argument.

The author says that the number of fast-food restaurants is likely to decrease because the average age is increasing. Thus, according to the author, the number of young people will probably decrease. Choice (D) seriously undermines this reasoning. If the overall population is growing  steadily  ("steadily" is a key word here), then that will  probably  counteract the effect of the aging.

Sure, we  might  have a steady influx of older immigrants, but if we are talking about steady growth of the overall population, it is more likely that we will see increases across all ages. Choice (D) does not disprove the author's logic with 100% certainty, but it does seriously weaken the argument.

I hope that helps!

bpdulog · Answer

So does overall in this context mean all age groups? D is kind of vague, I thought B was the better answer

GMATNinja · Answer

As described in my last post, (D) is a bit "vague". Specifically, we cannot say with 100% certainty that (D) would weaken the argument.

The "overall" population refers to the total population. Sure, there  might  be a steady influx of older immigrants, causing a steady increase in overall population. But it is likely that  steady  growth of the  overall  population implies growth across all age groups.

As for choice (B), check out  this explanation .

I hope that helps!

warrior1991 · Answer

Argument Analysis :-

1. The argument says that Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantaria.
2. Youth is a main consumer at these restaurants.
3. The average age is rising(people are moving towards old age).
4. Therefore number of restaurants are likely to decrease.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers.
Does not matter if they become bigger. The problem will still not be solved, if the average age is rising. Irrelevant.

(B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person.
This is against the premise given in the question that people tend to be young at Fast food restaurants. We cannot challenge the question stimuli. Irrelevant.

(C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants.
So what!! We are talking about how to tackle average age rising scenario. Irrelevant.

(D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily.
Sounds good. The overall population is growing steadily means Canatria is having a influx of newborn.They will become young one day. Hence will eat at these restaurants.
Weakens the conclusion.

(E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home.
This will strengthen the argument. If this is the case, restaurants are likely to decrease.

(E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home. This will strengthen the argument. If this is the case, restaurants are likely to decrease.

saby1410 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

if in option b All is mentioned instead of some will then optin is correct

like in this question it's not 100 % full proof weaken ans
i have seen many questions like the same which aren't 100% proof ans in strenthen and weaken type. So should i look for options which just provide belief of either strengthening or weakening

Any other insights you wants to give regarding this type of answers

KarishmaB · Answer

If (B) has "all" in place of "some", it will negate this premise:
"studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants"

We need to take the premises to be true. It doesn't make sense then to have its negation true too.

realslimsiddy · Answer

I rejected option D on the grounds that "population increase" could also be due to people moving to this city and there could be a possibility that majority of these people moving into the city could be old people(?) Due to this ambiguity I Went for option B which i wasn't also a fan of. Can someone tell me why it would be incorrect to think like this?

GMATNinja · Answer

We posted an explanation of why answer choice (B) is incorrect  here  and an explanation of why answer choice (D) is correct  here . Let us know if those don't clear things up!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja  - wanted to go over your statement in the yellow highlight. Mentioned in the yellow with regards to D -- there are some scenario that weaken and some scenario's that don't weaken when it comes to option D

Hence option D should not automatically be eliminated.

But according to this logic, even then there are scenario's in option B which weaken

--In option B, word -- the word "Some" can mean everything from 1 % to 30 % to 49 % to all 100 % of the people. That is the clinical definition of the word "some" (anything but zero)

So option B -- there are scenario's where perhaps option B is referring to 20 % or 30 % or 49 % of the elderly that order more frequently that young folks (it cannot be 50 % or more as that would be go against the premise)

Hence in this specific scenario's (20 % or 30 % or 49 %) option B -- you would agree , option B would also weaken the argument by a little bit.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on something like this !

Thank you for everything !

GMATNinja · Answer

Great question! Even if it's true that some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more than the average young person does, this doesn't affect the fact given in the argument that the older you get, the less fast food you eat. So in the future, as the population gets older, people will eat less fast-food -- even if there are some old people who still eat more fast food than all the teenagers.

If you want to think about it a bit more quantitatively, the argument is telling us that there's a distribution for young people and another distribution for old people and that the mean for old people is lower than the mean for young people. Answer choice (B) is telling us that the standard deviation for old people is high because there are some old people who eat more than the average young person (and therefore a whole lot more than the average old person). But if we're concerned with the total demand for fast-food, we only care about the mean for each distribution and how many people are in each group (because mean consumption will equal total consumption divided by n). The standard deviation doesn't matter.

I hope this helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma  - what if option B had "49 % of the older people eat at fast food restaurants more frequently than the average young person"

Would that weaken in your view ?

Initially I thought it would weaken but now I am thinking , even if the percentage is 49 % or 100 %, it may not go against the premise

""studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants"

because it quite possible that 49 % or 100 % of the elderly just frequent fast food restaurants and it's quite possible they just order a coffee (1 $ value) whereas the young may frequent less and order on average 15 $ worth of food perhaps

Thoughts on if (B) was 100 % or 49 % instead of 'Some" -- would that still not weaken or would that weaken ?

Thank you !

KarishmaB · Answer

Given premise:
"studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants. "

So people at 40 yrs of age eat less frequently in fast food restaurants than do people at 20 yrs of age. Either a smaller fraction of 40 yr olds may be eating in these restaurants or all may be eating but less frequently than 20 yr olds.
Even if 100% 40 yr olds eat at fast food restaurants, they may be doing so only once a month while 20 yr olds may be eating there every week.

Option (B) says that "some" older people eat more frequently than do youngsters so they are giving "some" as the exception group to the rule that older people are less likely to eat. Had this been "all older people eat more frequently than do youngsters," that would make the premise false. So an option like that would be unacceptable.

The distinction is not between 'eat' and 'visit'. The argument as well as the option (B) talks about 'eat'.

Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantari

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

Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantari

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