#6 - Although some nutritional facts about soft drinks are

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (A)

The author of this stimulus begins by introducing the fact that soft drinks do not list their exact
caffeine content on their labels. If the exact caffeine content were listed, this would make it easier for
people to limit their caffeine intake without cutting it out altogether. If this were possible, then many
people would start to limit their caffeine intake, and would improve their health as a result.

The stimulus is followed by a Must Be True question, so the correct answer choice must pass the
Fact Test: The correct answer will be the one confirmed by the facts presented in the stimulus.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus points out that many would
derive health benefits from the ability to limit their caffeine intake without eliminating it entirely.
Since this could be accomplished by listing exact caffeine content on soda labels, it must be true that
at least some people would enjoy health benefits as a result.

Answer choice (B): The stimulus only points out that listing sodas’ exact caffeine content would
make it easier to limit caffeine intake. This does not mean that limiting caffeine intake would be
impossible without such listings, or that anyone will be unable to do so. Perhaps doing so without
label listings would merely be more difficult.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus does not discuss people who want to eliminate their caffeine intake
entirely, and this group would not have to guess at the exact caffeine content regardless: anyone
looking to eliminate caffeine entirely would avoid all soft drinks with any caffeine.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus is mostly concerned with those who wish to moderate rather than
eliminate. Those who wish to completely eliminate caffeine from their diets would not benefit from
knowing the exact caffeine content—they would only need to know if there was any caffeine content
at all.

Answer choice (E): There is no suggestion in the stimulus that any detrimental effects would come
from providing such listings. So, although we can safely say that at least some people would benefit
from listing exact caffeine content, we cannot presume that anyone would suffer as a result. Since
this choice fails the Fact Test, it cannot be the correct answer.

[Jon Denning]

This is an explanation provided earlier to a student for question #6 listed above. The student initially asked if this question contained Formal Logic, which it does not, however I instructed him to see question #19 in this same section for a classic example of Formal Logic in action

For #6, we just have a Must Be True question, where we need to use the information in the stimulus to determine which answer choice we can prove. What we’re told is that soft drink labels contain some nutritional facts, nothing is given about exact caffeine content, information that would make it easier to limit (partially) one’s caffeine intake. And if that limiting ability was made easier many people would do it and thereby improve their health.

So what can we know? Well, not much, really. Or at least nothing beyond the few simple statements here. We can connect them, of course, and say that if soft drinks listed exact caffeine content it would be easier to limit (but not eliminate) caffeine intake, and some people’s health would be improved if soft drinks listed exact caffeine content...but beyond that we’re stuck. Fortunately, as you can see in the correct answer (A), what we can know with certainty is plenty: the health of some people would improve if exact caffeine content were listed on soft drink labels.

But what’s wrong with B-E? Let’s look briefly at each:

(B) talks about what would happen if exact caffeine content is not listed, and says it will happen to “many’ people, both things we simply cannot know from this stimulus.

(C) describes the outcome of people having to “guess” exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks (again, this is never discussed or implied in the stimulus).

(D) discusses people eliminating their caffeine intake, an idea that is expressly avoided in the stimulus; twice we’re told that people could “limit, but not eliminate” caffeine intake.

(E) is a total reversal of what can be determined: we know the health of some people would improve if exact caffeine content was known, NOT that the health of some people would worsen.

So hopefully that helps to explain them with more clarity. I should note too that “process of elimination,” as you describe how you arrived at the correct answer, is an entirely valid, even powerful, means of selecting choices! I use it all the time, as do other successful test takers. So don’t treat it as a failing at all; crossing off four is just as good as choosing one!

I hope this helps you out! Thanks again!

Jon

[Moukieroo]

So you are saying that there is no argument here?

it seems the statement:

"if it became easier for people to limit, but not eliminate, their caffeine intake, many people would do so"

is a conclusion of sorts.

It is a prediction, that is not really supported very much by the surrounding statements.
It just feels kind of like a Sufficient Assumption question, as though there is an identifiable missing link.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Moukie,

That's correct! There is no argument in the stimulus. The statement you've identified as a possible conclusion could, I imagine, be a conclusion in a different context. The problem with construing it as a conclusion in this stimulus is that, as you state, no support (i.e. no premise) is provided for it. Any true "conclusion" in the stimulus of a logical reasoning question will have some "premise" (reason) supporting it within that same stimulus, even if the stated premise does not fully validly lead to that conclusion. Without a premise/conclusion relationship contained in the stimulus, there also cannot be a true "missing" link in that stimulus. In a stimulus such as this, where there is no argument, you might be able to create a logical connection between the given statements (to arrive at the correct answer), but there cannot be anything "missing" from an argumentative perspective.

Notice also that the language of the question stem (a Must Be True question stem) steers you in the right direction. Since it's not an Assumption or Justify question stem, there is no need to search for an argumentative "missing link."

I hope this helps!

Jeremy