#9 - Yu: The menu at Jason’s Restaurant states that no food

[Administrator]

Official Explanation

The stimulus in this problem indicates that the menu at Jason's restaurant serves no food that contains products grown with chemical pesticides, and then concludes that "this cannot be true." The premises cited are that Yu was at Kelly's Grocery—which is the source of the restaurant's produce—and saw produce there coming from MegaFarm, which uses chemical pesticides. It's a classic "guilt by association" scenario.

The argument being made here is relatively easy to understand (I saw them shopping at a place that sells produce with chemical pesticides, so it can't be true they are a pesticide-free restaurant), but is it a good argument? No, definitely not. The biggest hole is that while Kelly's sells MegaFarm produce, there's no assurance that Jason purchased any of it. What if he simply avoided all the MegaFarm produce and made sure to purchase pesticide-free produce? From a prephrasing standpoint, answers that revolve around this idea should be on your radar.

Answer choice (A): This would strengthen Yu's claim more than hurt it. If Jason has no idea that there is pesticide-laden produce at Kelly's, it could be the case that he's purchased some of it, which would invalidate his claim and strengthen Yu's.

Answer choice (B): While this helps show that Jason isn't getting produce with pesticides elsewhere, it tells us nothing about what is occurring when he shops at Kelly's. Since Yu made a specific argument based on Kelly's, this answer has no effect on his conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. If this is the case, then Jason could very easily identify the pesticide fruit, and avoid it. that would allow Jason to continue to serve only pesticide-free produce, and would undermine Yu's conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This answer just indicates that the pesticides used have been government-approved as safe, but it doesn't tell us whether Jason is or isn't buying said produce, or can even identify it. this answer does nothing for the argument.

Answer choice (E): The actions of "most people" while at Kelly's is irrelevant to what Jason does when at Kelly's, and so this answer tells us nothing about the validity of Yu's conclusion.

[gcs4v333]

I originally chose answer (C) right away, but then I noticed it said, "most of the produce items that are grown without chemical pesticides carry a label to indicate that fact." If "most" items are sold with the label, then couldn't some items not have the label, and then isn't it conceivable that the produce belonging to MegaFarm isn't labeled? And that Jason bought this unlabeled produce, thinking it was pesticide free?

I know that "most" can mean "all"...but it also doesn't have to, so that point seems irrelevant.

I ended up picking (B) after originally ruling it out, although I didn't feel good about it. I figured he didn't necessarily need to have bought anything from Kelly's Grocery...maybe he went for gum? But then I see the stimulus mentions he buys produce there, so that undermines my reasoning.

Is the answer that it's what (here's that word again) most weakens the argument, not what absolutely obliterates the argument? Therefore even though there's a chance Jason could have bought unlabeled produce containing pesticides, answer (C) introduces at least some doubt?

[Adam Tyson]

The claim that we are seeking to undermine here, gcs4v333, is that the claim on Jason's menu cannot be true. To weaken that, we only need to show that it could be true. If most of the produce at Kelly's that wasn't treated with chemical pesticides has a label that says so, could it be the case that Jason only buys that produce, assuring that they don't accidentally get something that was treated with pesticides? We don't have to show that it is impossible for Jason's menu to be wrong, but only that it is possible that the claim is correct. Labeling of some of the produce makes that possible! As long as there is another supplier there besides MegaFarm, one that doesn't use chemical pesticides, and some of that produce is labeled as such, Jason could be in the clear.

Here's my rule for changing answers: once you have selected an answer, even if it was just a random guess, DO NOT change it unless you have clear and convincing evidence that the new answer choice is demonstrably better than the old one. Not just a gut feeling, not just a hunch or a fear - it has to be based on clear and convincing evidence, a serious "oh yeah, now I see it!" kind of moment. Short of that, more often than not you will be talking yourself out of a good answer and into a bad one, as you did here. Give that a try on your next PT and see if it improves your overall performance!

[180bound]

Hi,

I am quite confused about this one. I agree with the explanation about C being correct, however I find it rather arbitrary since, to me, its based on a huge "maybe".....i.e. "Because everything was labeled, maybe Jason just picked out the things that didn't have pesticides"...to me this is akin to creating a hypothetical.

When I picked answer B, I also created a hypothetical as well: (Since he shops else where to get stuff for his restaurant (and I assuming that Mega Farms isn't the only supplied in that grocery store) then "maybe" Jason picked out the items that weren't supplied by Mega Farms.

What makes my explanation with the "maybe" standard more or less plausible than the explanation offered in C? Both involve Jason exercising the same amount of volition.

[Adam Tyson]

The difference between answer B and answer C, 180bound, is that answer B doesn't tell us HOW Jason could shop at Kelly's and still avoid pesticides. Even if he shops at other places, the evidence is still that Kelly's carries products with pesticides and that Jason shops at Kelly's. He could buy all sorts of organic, pesticide-free produce elsewhere, but the author seems to think that if Jason buys produce for the restaurant at Kelly's he MUST be getting some stuff with pesticides on it.

Answer C gives us a solution: if there are pesticide-free products that are labeled as such, then it makes it possible for Jason to shop there and be truthful about being pesticide-free. Answer B does nothing to show us how that is possible, and so does nothing to weaken the claim that he is not telling the truth.

We aren't just spinning a hypothetical in this case; we are providing a new piece of information that, if true, undermines the argument. It's not about what Jason actually does, but about what he could do under the circumstances that matters.

And now, because I always like to provide alternative ways of thinking, here's another way to look at it: answer C confirms that Kelly's does carry at least some pesticide-free produce, while answer B does not.

[180bound]

Hey Adam!

Thanks for taking the time to reply; however I am still confused. Sorry I'm not getting it!

I understand how answer A allows it to be possible that maybe Jason just picked the foods that aren't labeled as containing pesticides.

Answer B allows it to be possible that maybe Jason just picked the foods that aren't supplied by MegaFarms (thus avoiding the pesticide food) supplied by MegaFarms, right?

Whether or not he actually does, we don't know but we are just looking for an answer that weakens the argument at all and I still don't know how B weakens it more so than C (or the other way around) since they are both allowing for a possibility of Jason not picking out a certain kind of food.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer B does NOT give us that possibility! We know he shops at Kelly's, and Kelly's gets produce from Mega, which uses pesticides. Nothing about answer B helps resolve that! Even if he also shops elsewhere, he is still shopping at Kelly's, and the only thing we know about Kelly's is that their supplier uses pesticides. We have to know more about Kelly's, rather than getting info about other places, in order to have any impact on this argument.

[180bound]

OK! That makes more sense! Thank you! I have to work on selecting answers that have the most impact on the stimulus itself and not possible consequences of the stimulus!