Q14 - At one sitting, a typical

[pinkdatura]

doughnut eater: 4 doughnuts (680 cal)=bagel eater: one bagel(500 cal)+2 grams of fat
I understand D is right by eliminating alternative reasons.
It took me a while to figure out E. I am wondering what impact of E is on the stimulus. By negating it, what will happen if most typical doughnut eaters are also bagel eaters? Will it weaken or just repeat the conclusion in stimulus? even if bagel eaters are doughnut eaters, it doesn't mean they will eat doughnuts after eating bagels.
Please correct me if I am wrong

[aileenann]

So even if typical donut eaters are also bagel eaters (that is, even if we negate (E)), that does not disturb the conclusion that at an individual sitting a typical donut eater consumes the same amount as a typical bagel eater. The numbers continue to be true as do the proclivities to add or not add to the donut/bagel, so the conclusion remains undisturbed.

[mxl392]

But if typical donut eaters are also typical bagel eaters (negating E), then at a typical sitting, a donut eater would eat 4 donuts + 1 bagel, which would constitute more calories than a typical bagel eater, right?

[ptewarie]

But if typical donut eaters are also typical bagel eaters (negating E), then at a typical sitting, a donut eater would eat 4 donuts + 1 bagel, which would constitute more calories than a typical bagel eater, right?

No. If a typical donut eater is also a bagel eater it does not mean that he has to eat the bagel and the donuts at the same sitting. It could, I suppose, but nowhere can we infer that. It just means that he/she also likes eating bagels and likes to eat donuts. We dont know whether they eat it AT THE SAME TIME.

It's like saying people who play soccer run more miles in a single game than someone playing basketball.

Then E would say: Most people playing Basketball dont also play soccer.

This is not a required assumption.

B/C they are NOT playing soccer while they are playing basketball. The scope of stiumulus is about A single sitting or in this case a single game(90 minutes) what the people do at other times has no bearing.

Say if John plays basketball and soccer, than John still only runs only as much is required in the game he is playing at the moment.( He cant play soccer and basketball at the same time)

[GeneW]

Can someone please explain why answer choice A) is wrong? It seems like the argument says there is more calorie from fat in donut compared to bagels (even though the argument did say the addition of spread can increase the calorie of bagel to that of donut). Thus the health impact is different.

Yet the conclusion of the stimulus says "there is very little difference." Isn't the argument assuming that health impact is the same regardless of the contribution of calories from fat and therefore A) seems to be saying that?

Thank you in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's get a complete explanation going here:

Necessary Assumption

Conc:
In terms of total calorie content, typical donut eater and typical bagel eater eat roughly the same at one sitting.

Prem:
Typical donut eater eats 680 calories at one sitting (via 4 donuts)
+
Typical bagel eater eats about around 680 calories at one sitting (via one bagel plus spreads)

Can we predict any gap?
Hmmm ... it's kinda tough, since they're basically saying that the typical donut eater and typical bagel eater both eat around 680 calories in one sitting. It doesn't have to be exactly the same number of calories, because the conclusion is softly worded saying "there is very little difference". The one gap I see is that the author said that "adding spreads to bagels CAN bring it up to match the total calories of the donut eaters", but he never said that bagel eaters TYPICALLY add spreads.

I would probably have to just go to the answers, and look for something that, if negated, would show that the typical donut eater does NOT have the same total calories in one sitting that the typical bagel eater does.

(A) no part of the argument deals with "health impact", and the information about fat has nothing to do with the conclusion. The conclusion is PURELY about whether the total number of calories is roughly the same. The ONLY way to weaken this argument is to show that the total number of calories is NOT the same.

(B) we don't care whether eaters are aware of the contents of what they're eating. The conclusion is PURELY about the total number of calories eaten, not about anyone's perceptions of what's being eaten.

(C) Again, "health benefit" is out of left field. This answer has nothing to do with comparing the total number of calories.

(D) This is about total caloric intake ... talk to me, (D). This is written in "ruling out" language, a popular form for correct answers on Necessary Assumption. The easiest way to assess "ruling out" answers is to negate them and see if they ruin the argument.

If we said that "the typical donut eater DOES add substances that increase the total caloric intake", would that ruin the argument?

YES! Right now the author has typical donut eater tied with typical bagel eater at around 680 total calories. While the author told us that typical bagel eaters put spreads on bagels that increase their calories to this 680 mark, he never considered/mentioned whether typical donut eaters put spreads on donuts that increase the caloric content. If they do, then typical donut eaters get more than 680 calories at one sitting.

(E) "most" is wrong almost every single time you see it in Necessary Assumption. Once again, it has proven to be a freebie. We don't care whether 51% or 49% of typical donut eaters are also bagel eaters. That 'most' threshold has no bearing on the argument. It in no way helps us compare the total number of calories being eaten by a typical bagel eater vs. typical donut eater at one sitting.

Hope this helps.

[GeneW]

Thank you for the explanations. Got it.

[bobjon1259]

Can an expert please explain why (D) is necessary to the argument?

First, let's negate it and see if that harms the argument (I maintain that the negated form does not harm the argument).

Negated form: "The typical doughnut eater adds to doughnuts any substances that increase the total caloric intake."

How does that harm the argument? We're told that a typical doughnut eater consumes 4 doughnuts containing a total of 680 calories and 40 grams of fat in the first sentence of the stimulus. Accordingly, wouldn't any added substances that increase total caloric intake be accounted for already in the 680 calories?

Thank you in advance for any help!

[ohthatpatrick]

No, if the typical donut eater puts a slice of bacon on top of her donut, the calories/fat contained in the added slice of bacon are NOT accounted for in the original 680.

The original 680 is defined as
"4 donuts, containing a total of 680 calories".

The donuts themselves contain a total of 680 calories. There isn't bacon on them yet. "ADDING a substance to donut" means that the substance was not counted as being part of "the donut" to begin with.

So if 4 donuts are 680 calories, and someone adds a substance to those donuts, then the added substance is on top of the 680.

An easier way to resolve your confusion is to just read/trust what the negation is telling you.

NEGATED (D)
If the typical donut eater adds substances to donuts that increase the total caloric intake, then the typical donut eater is eating more than 680 calories at one sitting.

The answer choice itself is telling us that the bacon on top is INCREASING the total calories, not part of the original calculation of donut-calories.

Hope this helps.

[JoP960]

Hi! How could answer D be a necessary assumption? What if the thing a donut eater add only get the calories up by 10? Isn't 690 and 680 a "very little difference"? I think "any substances " is too restrictive.