Q14 - Food labeling regulation:

[giladedelman]

14. (D)
Question Type: Must Be False
The regulation details the conditions under which food of a type that doesn’t normally contain fat may be labeled "nonfat": 1) most people mistakenly believe it ordinarily contains fat and 2) the label also states that it ordinarily contains no fat. Answer (D) is the only one that violates these rules, because most people are aware, not unaware, that applesauce does not normally contain fat, so, it should not be labeled "nonfat."

(A) doesn’t have to do with something labeled "nonfat." The regulation is about what may be labeled "nonfat," not what must be.
(B) is incorrect for the same reason as (A).
(C) doesn’t have to do with a food that ordinarily has no fat.
(E) gives an example of a food that satisfies both aspects of the regulation.

[mrudula_2005]

I know this question is about which of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation in the stimulus, but for the sake of discussing wrong answer choices, doesn't A conform with the labeling regulation?

The first sentance of the regulation can be translated into formal logic as follows:

If food of a type that does not ordinarily contain fat can be labeled "nonfat" --> most people mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains fat

the contrapositive of which is:

If most people do NOT mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains fat --> the food of a type that does not ordinarily contain fat CANNOT be labeled "nonfat"

1) so in (A), "most people know that bran flakes do not normally contain fat" is the same as most people NOT mistakenly believing the food ordinarily contains fat, thus meeting the sufficient condition of the contrapositive, so the fact that in (A) "Lester's Bran Flakes are not labeled 'nonfat'" perfectly conforms to the regulation, right?

and (B) is outside the scope because we don't know anything about regulations regarding foods that DO ordinarily contain fat, right?

thanks!

[peg_city]

I'm really getting caught up on the conditional logic on this one.


~OCF -> ~LNON -> MMB
or
MMB~ -> LNON -> OCF

MMB + ~OCF -> LNON

I know this is wrong because it doesn't make any sense. So where did I got wrong?

Thanks

[giladedelman]

re: mrudula_2005: yes, (A) conforms to the rule, and (B) is out of scope.

re: peg_city:

Your conditionals appear to add extra steps. I would nix the "OCF" part, and just remind myself that both rules are about foods that don't ordinarily contain fat. Then I would have this:

~mistakenly believe fat --> ~OK to label nonfat

mistakenly believe fat + label states --> OK to label nonfat

Don't go overboard with the abbreviations, by the way -- sometimes it makes things more confusing!

[irene122]

I am confused by how to diagram the last sentence since there are two "if"s, I diagram it as follows:

most people mistakenly believe + label state...--> may be label

Could anyone point out whether it's correct?

Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

You nailed it, Irene.

If we get two if's in a conditional statement, then we would just make them both part of the sufficient condition.

If you get a 180, you will be accepted to Pepperdine, if your GPA is not awful.

(this is just a confusingly worded version of saying "if you get a 180 and your GPA is not awful, you'll get accepted to Pepperdine")

180 and ~awful GPA --> accepted to Pepperdine

[wgutx08]

If you get a 180, you will be accepted to Pepperdine, if your GPA is not awful.

presumes, without providing justification, that Pepperdine does not practice yield protection.

[cyt5015]

The premise appears to contain two rules; actually, we only need to consider the first rule (-most people mistakenly believe food contains fat+ food do not contain fat-->cannot be labeled "nonfat"). The second rule permits something to happen, hence in any circumstance, we will never violate this rule!
Therefore, all we need to do is to find an answer satisfying the sufficient condition of rule 1 but failing to meet its necessary condition. The logic format will be "most people did not mistakenly believe --> food is labeled non fat", leading us to answer D.

[ttunden]

ok my diagrams were a bit different. I just diagrammed the 1st and 2nd sentence

but mostly relied on 1st sentence to find the correct answer

1st sentence: ~most MB OCF --> ~label nonfat

contrapositive: if labeled nonfat --> most MB OCF

MB OCF= mistakenly believe food ordinarily contains fat


so D violates it because it meets sufficient of contrapositive, but the necessary is not being met. I also agree with the above poster regarding the two IFs being turned into an AND relationship.

[805218400]

I do this wrong for two reasons:
1. I don't find that "although most people are aware that balabala does not ordinarily contain fat" is equal to "NOT mistakenly believe........", and I struck in confusing why the answer choices are not compatible to the stimulus_(:△」∠)_
2. I don't realize that the right answer have to "violate", but the four wrong answers may conform to the stimulus, and they also can just "not violate", so I am stuck in B and C and struggle that why they are not appeal to the stimulus........what a stupid girl QAQ

[andrewgong01]

I wanted to add an easier way to get rid of "C" instead of "(C) doesn’t have to do with a food that ordinarily has no fat." line of reasoning. I think the issue with C is that it fails to trigger any of the sufficient conditions since it says nothing on consumer perception.

Two Rules: [ I rewrote non-mistaken as correctly believe since it was getting confusing with the negatives and then the unless clause that added more negatives to it]

If correctly believe food has no/low fat --> food of this type can't be "non-fat"

If mistakenly believe food usually has fat and the label rule ---> food can be labelled as non fat

My other reasoning , which for A and B also differ somewhat from the other reasons.
A : Triggers the first sentence since people are correct in knowing the cereal has no fat and hence the product is labeled as non-fat
B: Unable to trigger this rule since it is most people correctly know lasagna has fat ; hence defer but can't be correct
C: Says nothing about consumer belief hence it can not be correct
D: Triggers first rule: People know apple sauce is a no fat food. However, this company goes ahead with the non-fat label
E: Triggers the second rule : People do mistakenly believe this is a fatty food. Moreover, the company has conformed with the labeling rule; hence this is in agreement with the regulations

[BrittanyB879]

I want to be sure I have the conditional reasoning diagram right. Manhattan Prep states in an unless statement, the sufficient becomes negated and the necessary statement does not. So, for the first question the conditional reasoning would be as follows: most people don’t mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contain fat ——> food that does not ordinarily contain fat cannot be labeled no fat


Is this wrong? If so, how?

[JenniferK632]

I'm not familiar with the "Application" question type, is there a more specific question type this question would fall into?

[Laura Damone]

Hi!

That's an old designation which I've now updated. Thanks for flagging!

I consider these "Must Be False" questions. To violate a conditional statement, show it's sufficient condition without its necessary condition.

This stimulus gives us two conditional statements:

If a food doesn't usually contain fat can be labeled nonfat, then most people mistakenly believe it contains fat.

If most people mistakenly believe it contains fat AND it's labeled nonfat, then the label also states that the food ordinarily contains no fat.

So, we can violate the rules by showing either of these sufficient conditions without its corresponding necessary condition. D does so with the first conditional rule by giving us a food that doesn't usually have fat, labelled as nonfat, even though most people know that its naturally fat free.

Make sense?