Drinking Roost, a children’s health drink, must be a good habit. This

Question

Diagnostic Verbal Test No 5 Q# 12 CR

Drinking Roost, a children’s health drink, must be a good habit. This substantially increases the stamina and IQ required by children for winning competitive cricket matches. Interviews conducted with young cricketers who drank one cup of Roost each before and after the match, confirmed that the players were feeling much fresher than those who did not take the health drink

What is the principal flaw in the above reasoning?

A. Users of Brownvita, another health also claimed the same effect after consuming one cup of Brownvita before and after the event.

B. Users of Roost did not take any other drink

C. The claim was made only by small percentage of the children’s population who drank Roost in the country.

D. The claim was mainly made by children who belonged to upper strata of people, who kept good health in spite of health drinks

E. In some countries, most commercial advertisements are meant only to motivate people into action by appealing to authority rather than to inform facts

A: The prime question is whether Roost can produce the said benefits; that others also can produce the same effect does not impact the argument.

B: This is a strengthener and not a flaw

C: Inadequate sampling is a major flow since it will be easy to motivate a small set of people than a larger population.

D. Strata of society is not a critical factor; notwithstanding use of health drinks, there are plenty of children with poor health in upper class due to poor lifestyles such as lack of immunity, lack of exercise, use of junk foods etc;

E: There is no advertisement that Roost is one such false claimer. So, this is not a flaw.

mba1382 · Answer

I was stuck between C & D. Finally selected D but honestly, I felt both C & D as contenders. Here, we are concerned whether Roost was indeed a good habit and the claim of the sampled students is aligned along the same lines. We need to cast a doubt on this sample.

C says that the sample is a small percentage of children population drinking Roost. Therefore casts doubt.

But at the same time, as D says the students, from upper strata, are already healthy in spite of drinking Roost. Here I felt that the sample is not representative and hence casts doubt on the claim.

Confused. Not convinced with OE honestly. Experts inputs please :-)

mba1382 · Answer

Got it why D loses to C. D is not actually weakening the claim. D says mainly students from upper strata but the sample might still have students with poor health from upper strata and drinking Roost. So it doesn't really cast doubt as C does. :-)

samsmalldog · Answer

I vote for C. it took me a couple of seconds to decide between C and D, while A,B,E are clearly wrong.

My reason is that D has a target for upper class, and the Roost works. If we know that the Roost is for everyone from the stem, then option D is correct.
C is the right choice because this option told us that the limitation of the data, which weakened the conclusion

appy25 · Answer

I opted C. As the claim states that it must be good for health. And the option C casts doubt upon the sample space irrespective of the income strata i.e. in general the concerns are raised.

talismaaniac · Answer

Chose D. Please help me eliminate C. I tel you why C is wrong. C states that 'The claim was made only by small percentage of the children’s population who drank Roost in the country.'
Now I understood from C that - 'small percentage of c's population who drank Roost' implying that out of the total population of children, only a small % drinks Roost and they were fresh. So, does not weaken.
May be you understood that - out of the c's population that drinks Roost, only a small % was fresh. Then it might weaken.

But why should not I go by my understanding and eliminate C?

Mahmud6 · Answer

It is C. Because, the claim is made by  young  cricketers not by cricketers from all segments including  adult  group.

It is not D. Because, nowhere in the argument it is saying that the claim is made by the upper strata of people.

kingyoungin211 · Answer

Could someone please help me with option D as I am still unable to understand the true gist behind that option and why it is incorrect. If the claim was made by children, who kept good health in spite of health drinks, then we cannot conclude that drinking Roost must be a good habit. If the children are already healthy to begin with, then the conclusion falls apart. My reasoning behind option C was that even if the claim was made by a small % of the people, the conclusion can still hold that drinking roost must be a good habit. Can someone please shed a light on this? Would greatly appreciate it!

srinjoy1990 · Answer

I don't agree that the argument has a sampling error.

"Interviews conducted with young cricketers who drank one cup of Roost each before and after the match, confirmed that the players were feeling much fresher than those who did not take the health drink" --> This implies a one off event, but the conclusion says that it must be a good habit.

Hence the main flaw is that the evidence really is irrelevant. A one of event cannot justify an habit  . However, under the circumstances, the best option really is C. Though sampling is not really a flaw here.

Tx.

push12345 · Answer

daagh

Could you explain difference between choice C and D

Posted from my mobile device

buan15 · Answer

We need to find the flaw in the argument : the conclusion not actually indicates that it is applicable for the entire population who consumes the drink but rather focuses only on effects young cricketers.
Nothing is stated about effects on others who consume the drink. It may be the case that the drink has some negative effects on those who are not actually interviewed- including their experiences may change the conclusion. We need to take the holistic view and then only can conclude about the efficiency of the drink.

Choice C states " The claim was made only by small percentage of the children’s population who drank Roost in the country" and points out the limitation of the argument properly.

On the other hand choice D states "The claim was mainly made by children who belonged to upper strata of people, who kept good health in spite of health drinks"

It does not indicate who drank the health drink-if it is consumed by only upper class children the representative group is only them, not the others. 
Additionally the wording in the last part is also ambiguous: in spite of health drinks children kept good health ! So is it the case that the drink was not beneficial at all and they needed to take something else to improve efficiency?

Choice C is much clearer and points to the flaw directly. Hence C is correct.

ayushgmatclub1 · Answer

VeritasKarishma  can you please help in eliminating D? I think it's a good contender to be a correct answer.

KarishmaB · Answer

Ignore the question. It is not GMAT-like.

rdrdrd1201 · Answer

but squash is rich people sport no?

arushi118 · Answer

I eliminated D as it says "good health" but we are told about "being more  fresh  after taking the health drink" - So these 2 are not the same.

Drinking Roost, a children’s health drink, must be a good habit. This

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

Drinking Roost, a children’s health drink, must be a good habit. This

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