Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most

Question

Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most consumers of that product would be upset to discover in it, then the food should be labeled as containing those ingredients.

Application: Crackly Crisps need not be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients, since most consumers of Crackly Crisps would not care if they discovered that fact.

The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) fails to address the possibility that consumers of a specific food may not be representative of consumers of food in general

(B) fails to address the possibility that the genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may have been proven safe for human consumption

(C) implicitly makes use of a value judgment that is incompatible with the principle being applied

(D) takes for granted that if most consumers of a product would buy it even if they knew several of the ingredients in it, then they would buy the product even if they knew all the ingredients in it

(E) confuses a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions

vyascd · Answer

Option A also seems correct.

Can someone please explain?

Ruchirkalra · Answer

"food in general" is not mentioned in the passage; the passage talks about "Crackly Crisps" specifically. So, that's the reason I believe that A is not correct.

Bhagvandas · Answer

can you help me why option 4 is incorrect

sharathnair14 · Answer

The matter here is not whether the consumers know all or some of the ingredients, but is about the consumers finding out something about the product that would make them upset.

That's what makes D wrong. 
An Evaluate Type Question only requires you to look at what is mentioned/directly implied in the passage.

aniket16c · Answer

Understanding the argument:
If a product contains ingredients harmful to consumers then the product "should" be labelled as such.
However, we may need to label the product because of other reasons such as product quality, place of origin etc.
Thus, consider that the product if from a particular place of origin that has different food norms. Hence, we may need to label the food accordingly.

Hence, option E is correct

Posted from my mobile device

11manish11 · Answer

Someone pls explain why E as I am confused between C and E

Posted from my mobile device

IanStewart · Answer

The 'principle' says: if most consumers would be upset by an ingredient, then that ingredient needs to be listed on the package. That principle is in the form "If A is true, then B needs to be true". Remember from logic that if a "If A then B" statement is correct, its  contrapositive  must also be logically correct. So if we negate both things and reverse the statement, to get "If B is false, then A is false", we'll arrive at a correct deduction, or in other words "If an ingredient does not need to be listed on the package, then most consumers must not be upset by it" is a correct deduction from the 'principle'. But the logical  converse  is not a correct deduction. That is, if you simply negate A and B, without reversing the if/then statement, you do not necessarily arrive at something true.

Here, the 'Application' sentence states the converse: "If most consumers are not upset by an ingredient, that ingredient need not be listed". That's not a logically valid deduction from the 'principle', because there might be all kinds of other reasons an ingredient should be listed, besides consumer reaction. Answer E points out, in different language, that the Application confuses the converse with the contrapositive.

This distinction, between the converse and the contrapositive, is tested far more often on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

mykrasovski · Answer

Hi  IanStewart  you provided a great explanation with a good note about the frequency with which conditionality is tested on the LSAT vs the GMAT.

I think there is a typo in your explanation, though. If we have a logic "if A then B" and we want to make a contrapositive, we need to (1) negate both sides and (2) flip the order, so the correct contrapositive version will be "If not B then not A", while you wrote "if not A then not B", which is a mistaken negation.

IanStewart · Answer

Yes, that was a typo, and an important one to fix - thank you for pointing it out!

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.

Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most

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

Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most

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