Springfield is the first city to ban fast-food advertisements marketed

Question

Springfield is the first city to ban fast-food advertisements marketed specifically toward children. Although eating fast food has been linked to weight gain, banning these advertisements will do little to curb childhood obesity, and it should be the job of the parent, not the government, to tell children what to eat.

The argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?

(A) Families are increasingly relying on the fast-food industry for financial reasons and will continue to frequent these establishments on their own terms, regardless of their children’s preferences.

(B) Studies indicate that, generally speaking, adults tend to be more influenced by advertising than children.

(C) If children learn that adults are trying to limit their fast-food intake, they will want to consume fast food even more.

(D) Those opposed to fast-food marketing geared toward children are welcome to buy airtime for their cause, too.

(E) Watching an advertisement has been shown to increase one’s desires for a product, particularly when the product is a food item.

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

tgsankar10 · Answer

I will go with option  E

Author's Conclusion: Banning fast-food advertisements will not curb childhood obesity.

A: No. Nothing related to advertisements
B: No. Nothing related to fast food
C: No. Nothing related to advertisements
D: No. Not relevant
 E: Correct.  Watching an advertisement will increase one’s desire for a product, particularly when the product is a food item. This proves that advertisements will lead to food desire and childhood obesity. Weakens Author's argument

Shwarma · Answer

Option E

argument: the banning of adverts towards children I not useful 
To weaken - find a premise that says that it is useful or makes us doubt this banning logic

(A) Families are increasingly relying on the fast-food industry for financial reasons and will continue to frequent these establishments on their own terms, regardless of their children’s preferences. -  Does not support what we are looking for 
(B) Studies indicate that, generally speaking, adults tend to be more influenced by advertising than children. -  strengthens the argument tbh 
(C) If children learn that adults are trying to limit their fast-food intake, they will want to consume fast food even more. -  not relevant to us finding that adverts influence the kid or not 
(D) Those opposed to fast-food marketing geared toward children are welcome to buy airtime for their cause, too. -  not relevant 
(E) Watching an advertisement has been shown to increase one’s desires for a product, particularly when the product is a food item. - T his is generic, but if an adver demography is a kid, then they will get influenced, thus banning it will reduce the influence

captain0612 · Answer

IMO option E  
 Conclusion  - Banning fast food advertisements will do little to curb childhood obesity. 
 Authors proposal/ suggestion  - The responsibility (what to eat/ eating habits) should fall on parents and not on the government.    NOTE:    This is not the main conclusion of the argument.

Question -> Identify the weakner from the option choices.

To weaken, we need to find an option choice that suggests doubts the author's conclusion/ reasoning.

(A) Families are increasingly relying on the fast-food industry for financial reasons and will continue to frequent these establishments on their own terms, regardless of their children’s preferences.  This options choice says that b  anning advertisments has no effect and families will continue to consume fast foods. This is supporting the author's point of view about the BAN.  Incorrect

(B) Studies indicate that, generally speaking, adults tend to be more influenced by advertising than children.  Irrelevant, degree of comparison between Child and the Adults does not provide any information/ link about the effetiveness of the advertisements on the Child's eating habits.  Incorrect

(C) If children learn that adults are trying to limit their fast-food intake, they will want to consume fast food even more.  A tricky option choice. It talks about the author's proposal and not about the advertisements. This choice suggests that Banning advertisements will not lead to decrease in fast food intake and hence Strengthening the argument. A bad side effect of the ban.  Incorrect

(D) Those opposed to fast-food marketing geared toward children are welcome to buy airtime for their cause, too.  Irrelevant, does not link how airtime for a different cause would undermine author's opinion.  Incorrect

(E) Watching an advertisement has been shown to increase one’s desires for a product, particularly when the product is a food item.   Correct   Watching an advertisement increases the desire, influencing the child to use/ purchase the product. By eliminating/ banning these advertisements, the influence is removed. Thereby, potentially impacting the childs obesity in a good way because now the child is not influenced to eat fast food.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

E. The implication is that the advertising ban is designed to curb childhood obesity. The author states that this ban won’t work, which suggests that the author thinks that the fast-food advertisements don’t cause childhood obesity. To weaken this argument, show that the advertisements do indeed lead to obesity. If it’s been proven that watching an ad increases one’s desire for something, then banning the ads would reduce the desire for fast food that produces weight gain in children. Choice (E) weakens the author’s argument by showing that the advertisement ban will indeed curb childhood obesity. Choice (A) seems to strengthen the author’s argument, and Choices (B), (C), and (D) deal with tangents that don’t relate to whether the advertisement would be effective in curbing childhood obesity. The correct answer is Choice (E).

Springfield is the first city to ban fast-food advertisements marketed

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

Springfield is the first city to ban fast-food advertisements marketed

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