Kylie eats at Moes Diner every Thursday, but last Thursday she ate at

Question

Competition Mode Question

Kylie eats at Moes Diner every Thursday, but last Thursday she ate at Joes. On Friday, she was sick to her stomach. It must have been the food at Joes.

Which of the following is the best criticism of this argument?

A. It does not take into consideration other possible causes.
B. It confuses cause and effect.
C. It assumes that she would not have gotten sick eating the same food at Moe’s.
D. It does not identify the specific type of illness.
E. It does not describe how long the illness lasted.

EncounterGMAT · Answer

Kylie eats at Moes Diner every Thursday, but last Thursday she ate at Joes. On Friday, she was sick to her stomach. It must have been the food at Joes.

Which of the following is the best criticism of this argument?

A. It does not take into consideration other possible causes.
 CORRECT . There might be lot of factors that would have made her sick. She must have ate something else from anywhere else other than at Joes.

B. It confuses cause and effect.
INCORRECT. IMO according to the passage, the cause and effect relation is correct. Nothing's wrong.
 
C. It assumes that she would not have gotten sick eating the same food at Moe’s.
INCORRECT. Weird yet attractive sentence. Nowhere in the passage it is mentioned that she had same food at Joes.

D. It does not identify the specific type of illness.
INCORRECT. This is the most illogical option here. The passage just mentions she's sick. Nothing more has to be emphasized on it.

E. It does not describe how long the illness lasted.
INCORRECT. Yes, the passage doesn't describe nor is it required.

eakabuah · Answer

The correct answer is between A and C. Out of the two, C is more specific by stating that Kylie could have gotten sick by eating the same food at Moes Dinner. If it is true that Kylie could get sick by eating the same food at Moes, then the argument would be greatly criticized.

nishthagupta · Answer

Answer A
A. It does not take into consideration other possible causes.

B. It confuses cause and effect- T he argument clearly identifies the cause(food at Joes) to the effect (Fell sick)

C. It assumes that she would not have gotten sick eating the same food at Moe’s .(The argument doesn't make this assumption. it merely states that the food at Joes is the cause of her sickness)

D. It does not identify the specific type of illness .(Out of scope)
 
E. It does not describe how long the illness lasted.  (Irrelevant information)

unraveled · Answer

The argument concludes that eating at Joes on Thursday caused sickness on Friday. This can best be weakened if the cause of sickness is different.

A. It does not take into consideration other possible causes. – CORRECT. If this is true then argument without evaluating other parameters claims that sickness is indeed the result of eating at Joes.
B. It confuses cause and effect. – WRONG. Argument does not make two references as the possible reasons behind the sickness so there’s no confusion.
C. It assumes that she would not have gotten sick eating the same food at Moe’s. – WRONG. Irrelevant. Even if Kylie might not have gotten sick after eating at Moes, it is not clear if eating at Joes caused the sickness. There might be other things that caused sickness.
D. It does not identify the specific type of illness. – WRONG. Irrelevant.
E. It does not describe how long the illness lasted. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer (A).

madgmat2019 · Answer

A. It does not take into consideration other possible causes. 
B. It  confuses  cause and effect......not useful
C. It assumes that she would not have gotten sick eating the same food at Moe’s.....out of context....no comparision with moes and joes
D. It does not identify the specific type of illness.....no use of specifying
E. It does not describe how long the illness lasted......no use of considering the duration of illness

ArtVandaley · Answer

Easy A. It doesn't take into consideration other possible causes.

Posted from my mobile device

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Correct Answer: A

Kylies stomachache could have been caused by any number of factors other than the food at Joes.

Perhaps she ate or drank something that evening that did not agree with her. Perhaps she was nervous or anxious about something and that caused her stomach to be upset. Perhaps she caught the stomach flu. Reversing causation is not possible, so choice b is incorrect. The argument does not necessarily assume she wouldnt have gotten sick eating the same food at Moes (choice c); the passage doesnt say what she ate or whether she even could have eaten the same thing at Moes. The only assumption here is that she was sickened by the food at Joes. The argument does not specify the type of illness (choice d) or describe how long it lasted (choice e), but these are not the best criticisms of the argument.

Knowing more about the kind of illness she had might help us rule out food poisoning or other food related illnesses, but the best criticism is clearly a.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Kylie eats at Moes Diner every Thursday, but last Thursday she ate at

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

Kylie eats at Moes Diner every Thursday, but last Thursday she ate at

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