Some dairy farmers in the province of Takandia want to give

Question

Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the argument?

Some dairy farmers in the province of Takandia want to give their cows a synthetic hormone that increases milk production. Many Takandians, however, do not want to buy milk from cows given the synthetic hormone. For this reason Takandia’s legislature is considering a measure requiring milk from cows given the hormone to be labeled as such. Even if the measure is defeated, dairy farmers who use the hormone will probably lose customers, since __________.

(A) it has not been proven that any trace of the synthetic hormone exists in the milk of cows given the hormone

(B) some farmers in Takandia who plan to use the synthetic hormone will probably not do so if the measure were passed

(C) milk from cows that have not been given the synthetic hormone can be labeled as such without any legislative action

(D) the legislature’s consideration of the bill has been widely publicized

(E) milk that comes from cows given the synthetic hormone looks and tastes the same as milk from cows that have not received the hormone

IanStewart · Accepted Answer

From the customer's point of view, there is what we can call, for simplicity, 'good milk' (with no hormone) and 'bad milk' (with the hormone). If the bill passes, the bad milk will be labeled 'bad milk' and customers won't buy it. But if the bill does not pass, then the bad milk will not be labeled 'bad milk'. So why would the sales of bad milk still drop? If customers can still identify good milk and bad milk. And that will happen if all the good milk is labeled 'good milk', and the bad milk has no label at all. That's what answer choice C is saying - the customer will know which milk is good, because the good milk will be labeled as such.

Vikas gives the correct analysis above. I think the other replies might have misunderstood what answer C means. Answer C is not saying that farmers who produce hormone-free milk will label their milk incorrectly as "full of hormones"; no farmer would choose to do that even if it were legal, because that would hurt sales. So if that's what C meant, C would be irrelevant. C is saying that farmers who make hormone-free milk will label it as "hormone-free", which will help customers distinguish between the milk they want and the milk they don't want.

akhil911 · Answer

Premise - Farmers want to increase milk production by giving synthethic hormone to cows.
- Many people however dont want to buy milk from cows that have been given the synthethic hormone.
- Legislature is considering a measure where milk coming from such cows should be labelled.

Conclusion
-  If the measure of the Legislature is defeated then too the farmers who use cows with synthethic hormone will lose customers.

We have to provide a reason as to why the conclusion will hold.
We would have to find an answer choice that would help strengthen the conclusion.
For ease of use lets use HM - Milk with Hormones and NM - Normal milk without hormones.
If the HM producers are not labelling their milk ( which they would not do as labelling it voluntarily would hurt their sales) , and NM producers label their milk as such (ie they label their milk as free from hormones ) then the milk consumers would naturally come to know which milk is hormone free and which one is not. Hence this would hurt sales.

Lets consider the answer choices:

A it has not been proven that any trace of the synthetic hormone exists in the milk of cows given the hormone
- Even if this has not yet been proven then too the fact remains that people are against milk from such cows. This does not provide any reason as to why the sales of milk would go down.

B some farmers in Takandia who plan to use the synthetic hormone will probably not do so if the measure were passed 
- If some farmers will not use the hormone then sales should go up not decrease - weakens the conclusion.

C milk from cows that have not been given the synthetic hormone can be labeled as such without any legislative action 
- as per our line of reasoning - Correct answer choice.

D. the legislature’s consideration of the bill has been widely publicized 
- This does not provide any reason for the sales to go down

E milk that comes from cows given the synthetic hormone looks and tastes the same as milk from cows that have not received the hormone 
- There is no mention of preference of taste in the passage. Even if the taste is similar or different it has no bearing on the conclusion.

Hope this helps !!!

Carcass · Answer

Really good question from the new OG. I notice how the questions itself (and based on what i am reading online) are more sophisticated than in the past

back to the question.

You may consider this question "complete the blank" as a strenghtening question in this case

The core of the question is this sentence

For this reason Takandia’s legislature is considering a measure requiring milk from cows given  the hormone to be labeled as such .

A) if we have the method to trace the hormaone or not is not our concern

B) what will do the farmers in a foresable future is not what we are looking for

C)  Wins. How we can (farmers) lose customers: only if the cows that produce good milk are labeled as ill cows, full of hormones

D) the number of people that do know about the ban or not is not the problem, actually

E) looks and tastes milk............is not related to our labeled milk if it is good or not.

Hope this helps

regards

WillGetIt · Answer

Hello,

I think analysis is wrong. See how:

Premise1: Farmers wanted to use synthetic hormones that are not favored by consumers

Premise2: Legislators want to favor consumers by clearly labeling the milk starting "milk contain synthetic hormones"

Conclusion: This measure even if defeated would have desired effect (from legislator perspective i.e. customers do not buy milk with synthetic hormone or dairy farmers will loose customers)???

So here the author states that if the measure (labeling appropriately) is UNSUCESSFUL then still it will have desired outcome (favor consumers from consuming milk containing synthetic hormones). What could be the possible reason for that:

Well if the milk "not containing the synthetic hormones" is labeled as such then consumers will be aware of milk containing the synthetic hormones because the later could not be labeled.

Hope it helps.

Regards
Vikas

Carcass · Answer

ianstewart

Hi Ian,

glad to see you once again here on the board. I always like your cutting edge explanations. Moreover, I agree with you, my mistake in C explanation.

Actually, I thought the other way around, reading not very carefully

However, this demonstrates how is possible to pick the right one if you understand the gist of the question, indeed. That's because GMAC questions have consistency.

regards

IanStewart · Answer

Thanks carcass - good to see you too, and I hope everything's going well!

cuhmoon · Answer

What about answer choice D. If the legislation has been widely publicized, that means consumers will not purchase the milk labelled.
Also - what does it mean to say - if the measure is defeated? Does it mean the bill was NOT implemented of it was implemented but it failed.

If the later is true, then D can be correct because if everyone knows the hormone milk will be labelled, they won't consume it and thus farmers will lose customers

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

cuhmoon , if the legislation is defeated, that means it does not receive enough votes to be enacted. In that case, none of the milk would be labeled, and consumers would have no way to identify which milk to avoid, regardless of how much attention the legislation itself might have received. To conclude otherwise, we'd have to know that the specific brands of milk to be labeled were actually  named  in the legislation. However, there's no indication that this is the case.

anairamitch1804 · Answer

The implications of the prompt are that labeling the milk from cows given the hormone would cause the farmers who use the hormone to lose customers. To fill the blank we need to find something that will result in their losing customers even without the legislation.

A it has not been proven that any trace of the synthetic hormone exists in the milk of cows given the hormone

This does not give customers reason or a way to avoid milk from cows given the hormone.

B some farmers in Takandia who plan to use the synthetic hormone will probably not do so if the measure were passed

This says what will happen if the legislation is passed rather than what will happen if it is not.

C milk from cows that have not been given the synthetic hormone can be labeled as such without any legislative action

Ah, so even if the milk from cows given the hormone is not labeled as such, the milk from cows not given the hormone can still be labeled as such, creating a way for customers to differentiate between the two and avoid the milk from the cows given the hormone. So the farmers using the hormone would still lose customers.

D. the legislature’s consideration of the bill has been widely publicized

This is interesting, because the publicity likely increases customer awareness of the use of the hormone, but this does not show how customers would be able to differentiate between the two types of milk.

E milk that comes from cows given the synthetic hormone looks and tastes the same as milk from cows that have not received the hormone

What this is saying is that without labeling customers would have difficulty knowing which milk is which. So this does not show how or why they would avoid the milk from cows given the hormone.

Since it shows how customers could differentiate between the two types of milk even if the legislation were not to get passed, the best answer is C.

AdityaHongunti · Answer

I have a question>>
 are we assuming that the hormone full farmers cannot mislabel their product? As there is no legislation on labelling for any of the two types , it is possible for the farmers to mislabel easily. PLz explain

DmitryFarber   chetan2u   egmat   TommyWallach   GMATNinja

chetan2u · Answer

We have to limit ourselves to the para at hand. It nowhere claims that there could be cheating.
When it says that legislation, requiring them to mark hormone milk as such, would result in loss of revenues of these dairy farmers, the para believes that these farmers would mark their milk as hormone milk, SO para does not assume that these farmers will be unfair and not mark their product.
we too can believe in similar line as we have to go as per the info of para.

Yes, in real life scenario, you can doubt even the legislation making any impact because of the rampant malpractices.

CAMANISHPARMAR · Answer

Official answer:-

Argument Construction 
 
Situation  Some dairy farmers in a province want to give their dairy cows a synthetic hormone, but many people in the province do not want to buy milk that is from cows given the hormone. The provincial legislature is considering a measure requiring milk from cows given the hormone to be labeled as such.

Reasoning  What would be a reason to believe that dairy farmers who use the hormone will lose customers even if the measure is defeated? If the measure passes, the dairy farmers who give cows the hormone may lose the many customers who do not want to buy such milk. If the measure is defeated, then milk produced with the hormone will not have to be labeled.so what would lead one to believe that hormone-using farmers would nevertheless lose customers? A statement that provides an answer to this question would logically complete the argument.

Option C is Correct:  If the measure is defeated, the milk produced by farmers who avoid using the hormone would likely gain a market advantage if the milk was labeled as produced without use of the hormone. As a result, dairy farmers who use the hormone would probably lose customers.

Why others are incorrect:

Option A is incorrect:  At best, this lack of proof might mitigate hormone-using farmers' loss of customers, whatever the outcome of the legislature's consideration of the measure.

Option B is incorrect:  The argument's conclusion is mainly about what will happen if the measure is defeated, not what will happen if it passes.
 
Option D is incorrect:  Publicity could affect consumers' attitudes about hormone-produced milk, but if the measure is defeated and labeling practices do not change, customers would have no way of knowing which milk was produced by use of the hormone.

Option E is incorrect:  This suggests that, in the absence of labeling, consumers would be unable to decide which milk was produced by use of the hormone, so dairy farmers who used the hormone would be unlikely to lose customers if the labeling measure is defeated.

dreamofbest2020 · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma

While I understand why option C is the correct answer I'm not able to eliminate option E because people know farmers use hormones, this fact may still create doubt, even if the measure is defeated, in the mind of people. Since, people can not distinguish between the two types of milk, they may not buy milk. Hence, there will be a drop in the sales for farmers who use hormones.

Please let me know if I'm overthinking?

thanks !

KarishmaB · Answer

It is too much of an assumption that people will stop buying milk if they are unable to differentiate. We need to complete the sentence that "dairy farmers who use the hormones will lose customers since ..."
So we should look for an option that tells us how people may differentiate between farmers who use hormones and those who do not use hormones.

mSKR · Answer

Even if the measure is defeated , dairy farmers who use the hormone will probably lose customers, since __________.

change in meaning , made me choose or reject the option C.

I misunderstood the meaning .
so measure is defeated means law was not enacted. The law was failed to be implemented.
I thought the law/measure was DEFEATED as win over the measure. 
The illness was defeated. means now the person is fully fine, not ill anymore.
The measure was defeated, means no more measure now. already implmented- served the purpose .

It is easy to be confused in future. How can i remember the correct meaning. Please suggest.  DmitryFarber   VeritasKarishma

KarishmaB · Answer

Read news articles on politics, economy, business, law etc regularly.

hassan233 · Answer

When we go grocery shopping, we often see products labeled as "Non-GMO". Those who care about GMO's will buy those products over the ones without the "Non-GMO" label. Therefore, products without the "Non-GMO" labeling will lose sales.

Foreheadson · Answer

I read the explanations and I know this is an OG question. I also chose the correct answer, simply because there was no better option. But I am still not convinced that this is 100% logical answer.

Please follow my logic and indicate where is my logic flawed. If the new law is not enacted by the government then ok, let's assume that natural milk will be advertised accordingly. But the argument does not indicate, that the synthetic milk will not be labeled the same way, or that labeling the synthetic milk as natural milk is prohibited. Simply stated, we are not told that the synthetic farmers won't lie and as per my understanding, we have to assume everything is possible on CR unless it is stated otherwise.

IanStewart · Answer

Because the closing sentence of the stem says "probably", we aren't looking for an airtight conclusion here. We're looking for a reason that "probably" explains why those farmers using the hormone will lose customers. I read an implication in the wording of C, where it says certain milk "can be labeled" to mean that other milk can't (legally, presumably), but even if one doesn't read C that way, it still provides a reason to think (assuming, as you point out, that milk producers won't label their milk fraudulently) that milk with hormone won't sell very well.

Some dairy farmers in the province of Takandia want to give

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 dairy farmers in the province of Takandia want to give

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