Adelaide: Mainstream cleaning supplies are dangerous for people, becau

Question

Adelaide: Mainstream cleaning supplies are dangerous for people, because they contain toxic chemicals such as phosphates. Young children are especially at risk for asthma and other diseases from these airborne chemicals, plus some of the cleaning products can imitate estrogen and cause severe health problems for women. Natural cleaning products are safe and effective, however, so people should consider switching to healthier and more environmentally friendly cleaning alternatives.

Marcel: But natural cleaning products are not as strong as the mainstream products and often fail to provide the same level of cleanliness. If parents keep the cleaning products out of reach, the products will not create a serious risk for children. And the mainstream cleaning products are cheaper and thus more economical for families to purchase.

Marcel responded to Adelaide’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A) Ignoring the main point that Adelaide is making and redirecting his focus to different topics

(B) Ceding the main point of Adelaide’s argument but suggesting a problem that Adelaide fails to address

(C) Relying on apocryphal and unsupported information to formulate a separate argument

(D) Raising an argument that Adelaide does not clearly address and offering an alternative take on the topic that Adelaide is discussing

(E) Overlooking important details of Adelaide’s argument and thus failing to counter her claims with sufficient objection

IanStewart · Answer

Interesting question, and it looks to me to be a very hard problem, because the distinction between two answer choices is razor thin. Adelaide's argument focuses on the health risks of chemical cleaning products. Marcel does  not  ignore that concern, and he does not cede the point (he says "the products will not create a serious risk"). So A and B are both wrong.

We have no way to know if Marcel's evidence is apocryphal or unsupported, so no reason to choose C here.

So the answer is either D or E, and both of those answers seem quite good here. Looking at D, Marcel does raise concerns Adelaide didn't address (the effectiveness and cost of organic cleaning products), and Marcel does offer an alternative take on Adelaide's concern about risk (Marcel talks about how to ensure children aren't exposed to cleaning products). So D is a great answer here.

But looking at E, it also looks good. Marcel does overlook one important detail of Adelaide's argument -- Marcel never addresses the serious risk to some women that Adelaide brings up. That seems important to me, so I'd be happy saying that Marcel did not "counter her claims with sufficient objection". The reason I prefer D to E here is that E says Marcel overlooked "important  details " of Adelaide's argument, and Marcel really only overlooks one detail, so it's not correct to use the plural "details". So D seems like the best answer to me, but if D weren't among the choices, I'd feel good about picking answer E too.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Overview:

Question asks the student to review two comments, one from Adelaide and one from Marcel, and then to determine which answer choice best describes the way in which Marcel responds to Adelaide. Adelaide claims that people should stop using mainstream cleaning products and switch to natural cleaning supplies due to the potential health and environmental risks that mainstream products can cause. Marcel argues that natural cleaning supplies do not clean as well and that the mainstream products should be used but kept out of reach so that children cannot get to them. The student should notice right away that Marcel’s response seems to miss the point of Adelaide’s argument altogether. She claims that the mainstream products contain airborne chemicals (thus calling into question the value of just putting products out of the reach of children), and she claims that natural cleaning supplies are effective (thus contradicting Marcel’s claim that they do not clean as well).

The Correct Answer:

E Answer choice (E) correctly notes that Marcel’s response overlooks important details within Adelaide’s argument (i.e., the detail about the airborne chemicals and the detail about the natural products being effective) and as a result fails to offer a worthwhile objection. Answer choice (E) is correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

A Marcel’s response does not necessarily ignore Adelaide’s main point: He does counter her claims that people should switch from mainstream cleaning products to natural cleaning products. What is more, his response also does not redirect the focus to different topics. So, answer choice (A) cannot be correct.

B At no point does Marcel cede the main point of Adelaide’s argument. He does raise the question of cost—which Adelaide does not discuss directly—but this makes answer choice (B) only half correct. Answer choice (B) may be eliminated.

C It is possible that Marcel’s information is apocryphal and unsupported, but the information given within the two comments does not provide enough detail for the reader to make the determination that it is or is not. Marcel does not claim to have support for his arguments, but then again neither does Adelaide. As a result, answer choice (C) is largely irrelevant as an option, functioning primarily as a red herring, and it should be eliminated immediately. Note: The student should take care to avoid getting caught up in answer choices such as these that seem less clearly incorrect than other answer choices.

D The only argument Marcel raises that Adelaide does not directly address is that of cost: he claims that natural cleaning products cost more than mainstream products. But this does not, in itself, offer an alternative take on the topic that Adelaide is discussing. It should also be noted that Adelaide’s comments about the health and environmental risks of mainstream products contain the implication that these dangers are worth the increased cost of the products. Students familiar with this topic might try to argue that many natural cleaning products can be very cheap, but as this is not clearly a feature of Adelaide’s argument, it cannot be used against Marcel’s claims in this question. Adelaide does not mention inexpensive natural products, and Marcel raises the concern of cost, so it can be argued that Marcel makes an argument that Adelaide does not clearly address. As mentioned before, however, this is not enough to suggest that Marcel is offering an alternative take: he is merely trying to undermine Adelaide’s claims.

IanStewart · Answer

That 'official explanation' didn't make much sense, so I looked into the source of the question. It seems to be from one of the practice tests in the "LSAT Secrets Study Guide", which is a prep company book. They say their practice tests are "modelled after" the real LSAT, so they're not using official questions. But here it's been tagged as an official LSAT problem, and as best I can tell, it isn't official.

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.

Adelaide: Mainstream cleaning supplies are dangerous for people, becau

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

Adelaide: Mainstream cleaning supplies are dangerous for people, becau

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