Some fast food chains have responded to concerns that their products a

Question

Some fast food chains have responded to concerns that their products are contributing to a perceived obesity crisis by offering customers a wide assortment of new "low carbohydrate" and "low fat" menu offerings. Clearly, the reason for these menu changes is a desire on the part of these chains to prove that fast food does not necessarily have to be unhealthful junk food.

Which of the following most seriously undermines the explanation offered above for the behavior of the fast food chains?

A. Nutritionists are still strongly divided over whether a low carbohydrate diet or a low fat diet is better for helping people to lose weight.
 B. Many items that are neither low fat nor low carbohydrate remain highly popular at the fast food chains that have begun to offer more healthful options.
 C. Those who tend to be the most concerned about the harmful effects of fast food on Americans' health would be unlikely to eat at these chains even if the chains provided low fat and low carbohydrate menu options.
 D. Fast food chains have found that they can charge significantly higher prices for menu offerings that are perceived to be healthful and nutritious.
 E. Consumer pressure has led several fast food chains to eliminate "jumbo-sized" menu offerings because of the perception that these offerings promote poor health and obesity.

RaghavSingla · Accepted Answer

Is the OA correct?

I thought it should be A. If fast food stores by offering low carbohydrate and low fat diet, that doesn't means that it is a healthy diet. Till we are not sure of whether low fat and low carbohydrate diets make a healthy diet, we can't say that fast foods are providing healthy food.

EDIT: After reading the question again, I feel that OA is correct. The questions asks us to undermine the reasoning given by the fast food and not check that whether reasoning is correct or not. The reasoning given is stated as that fast food chains want to show people that they are concerned about their healths. Option D states that its not health but money that chains are concerned about.

Nice question!

Please give KUDOS!

Posted from my mobile device

abhimahna · Answer

To weaken the explanation offered for the behavior of the fast food chains, we need to find something that provides another reason for making the change in the Menu.

D clearly states that they could charge more prices on the items marked as healthy, thereby could make more profits. hence D is the correct answer.

LogicGuru1 · Answer

A 20 second reading and the correct answer is D
 
Explanation:-

Fast food restaurants have started selling low carb and low fat food.
Why? Because fast food restaurant want to let the customer know even though they are selling fast food, it is not unhealthy. 
 
 In other words we have to weaken this line:- "Fast food restaurant have added low carb and low fat because they want to sell healthy food"
 
A. Nutritionists are still strongly divided over whether a low carbohydrate diet or a low fat diet is better for helping people to lose weight.
 WRONG:- If that was the case then restaurant need not to add low carb and low fat food because its benefit are not established.
 
B. Many items that are neither low fat nor low carbohydrate remain highly popular at the fast food chains that have begun to offer more healthful options.
 WRONG:- This option tells us that people will be stupid. Even though healthy food is available these idiots will buy unhealthy food. Does not weaken restaurants claim. They are selling healthy food. They have kept their end of bargain. Now its for the customers to buy those healthy options. 
  
C. Those who tend to be the most concerned about the harmful effects of fast food on Americans' health would be unlikely to eat at these chains even if the chains provided low fat and low carbohydrate menu options.
 WRONG:- Well, This option says some people will not buy at all whether restaurants provide healthy or non healthy food. They are the demographic that the restaurant has no concern with. These people hate fast food restaurants and fast food can do nothing to lure them.
 
D. Fast food chains have found that they can charge significantly higher prices for menu offerings that are perceived to be healthful and nutritious.
 CORRECT :- This gives an  alternate reason  why restaurants have added low carb and low fat options.  Not because these restaurants care about peoples health but because such fancy low carb and low fat options are sold at a much higher price . HIGHER PRICE=HIGHER PROFIT. SO actually all this drama by the restaurants  is for profit and not for peoples health. 
 
E. Consumer pressure has led several fast food chains to eliminate "jumbo-sized" menu offerings because of the perception that these offerings promote poor health and obesity.
 WRONG:- This may be or may not be a weakener because it requires a long jump of assumption that people asked to stop jumbo size food. then restaurants thought ohh. people like to be healthy and then restaurants add healthy options. THIS OPTION REQUIRES A UNNECESSARY ASSUMPTION. 
IT is also wrong because it does not talk about the reason why can't the company just remove all jumbo food and continue with small portion of the same food. WHY DOES THE RESTAURANTS HAVE TO INTRODUCE SPECIAL FANCY LOW CARB AND LOW FAT FOOD.

ANSWER IS D

mjmhtjain · Answer

Some fast food chains have responded to concerns that their products are contributing to a perceived obesity crisis by offering customers a wide assortment of new "low carbohydrate" and "low fat" menu offerings. Clearly, the reason for these menu changes is a desire on the part of these chains to prove that fast food does not necessarily have to be unhealthful junk food.

Which of the following most seriously undermines the explanation offered above for the behavior of the fast food chains?

A. Nutritionists are still strongly divided over whether a low carbohydrate diet or a low fat diet is better for helping people to lose weight.
B. Many items that are neither low fat nor low carbohydrate remain highly popular at the fast food chains that have begun to offer more healthful options.
C. Those who tend to be the most concerned about the harmful effects of fast food on Americans' health would be unlikely to eat at these chains even if the chains provided low fat and low carbohydrate menu options.
D.  Fast food chains have found that they can charge significantly higher prices for menu offerings that are perceived to be healthful and nutritious. 
E. Consumer pressure has led several fast food chains to eliminate "jumbo-sized" menu offerings because of the perception that these offerings promote poor health and obesity.

The "explanation" mentioned in the question refers to the "  desire on the part of these chains to prove that fast food does not necessarily have to be unhealthful junk food " , keyword being desire.

Option D debunks this by proving that the Fast Food companies did not make menu changes because they wanted to prove something, but because they could charge higher for the food. Therefore Option D is correct

mbaprep2016 · Answer

conclusion says the reason for menu change is the concerns on chains, the concern the chain wants to prove. 
what is if some other reason is their to change menu.
D shows different motto to change.

globaldesi · Answer

kaplan official explanation:
Identify the Question Type

Since it asks to undermine an explanation, this is a Weaken question.

Untangle the Stimulus

The stimulus contains a causal argument: the desire to prove that fast food is not junk food caused the fast-food chains to introduce the low-fat and low-carb menu items. The author assumes that the fast-food restaurants changed their menus for this reason and no other.

Predict the Answer

Predict that the correct answer will present a different possible cause for the introduction of the new items.

(D) provides an alternative explanation: if the chains believe they can make more money on these new items, that may be reason enough to introduce them, regardless of any health claims.

(A) is incorrect; which of the two types of food is better for consumers is irrelevant to why the chains are offering the items in the first place.

(B) offers no alternative explanation, because the new items were not intended to replace other items completely, but merely to show that not all fast food is junk food.

(C) is irrelevant; people who will never eat at these chains regardless of what they offer are not the cause of any change in menu offerings.

(E) provides some evidence that chains have made other menu changes because of the perception of unhealthiness, so it certainly doesn't weaken the argument that this perception wasn't the reason for the new menu items.

TAKEAWAY: To weaken a causal argument, look for evidence of another cause.

catcun · Answer

egmat  I still don't feel fully convinced that A is incorrect. Could you please shed some light on this?

egmat · Answer

catcun I can clearly see why A seems the right one. It's a trap option; here is the KEY Distinction: Motivation vs. Effectiveness The conclusion we need to weaken is about the REASON/MOTIVATION for the chains' behavior - specifically, that they want to "prove that fast food doesn't have to be unhealthful." Why Option A Doesn't Work: Option A tells us that nutritionists disagree about which diet approach (low carb vs. low fat) is better for weight loss. But ask yourself: Does this tell us anything about WHY the chains made these menu changes? The answer is no. Even if nutritionists are divided on which approach is superior, the fast food chains could still be motivated by wanting to prove that fast food can be healthful - they're simply offering both options to cover their bases. The disagreement among experts doesn't provide an alternative explanation for the chains' behavior. Option A addresses the effectiveness or scientific validity of the dietary approaches, but NOT the chains' motivation for offering them (which is exactly what we need to weaken here). Why Option D Works: Option D provides an alternative motivation : profit. If chains can charge significantly higher prices for these "healthful" items, then their real reason might be to increase revenue, not to prove a point about health. This directly undermines the explanation given in the argument. Option (A) is simply a distraction that merely question whether the approach will be effective - that's different from questioning why they did it in the first place. I hope that gives you the clarity now? If you still feel confused about anything in the question or the answer choices, feel free to ask

Some fast food chains have responded to concerns that their products a

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

Some fast food chains have responded to concerns that their products a

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