Food allergies account for more than thirty thousand emergen

[JbhB682]

Source : Manhattan Prep. Critical reasoning guide (Page 178)

Food allergies account for more than thirty thousand emergency department visits each year. Often, victims of these episodes are completely unaware of their allergies until they experience a major reaction. Studies show that ninety percent of food allergy reactions are caused by only eight distinct foods. For this reason, individuals should sample a minuscule portion of each of these foods to determine whether a particular food allergy is present.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the recommendation made in the argument?

(A) The percentage of allergy victims who were not aware of the allergy before a major episode
(B) The percentage of the population that is at risk for allergic reactions
(C) Whether some of the eight foods are common ingredients used in cooking
(D) Whether an allergy to one type of food makes someone more likely to be allergic to other types of food
(E) Whether ingesting a very small amount of an allergen is sufficient to provoke an allergic reaction in a susceptible individual

OA : E

Two quick questions

[JbhB682]

Question 1

As a test taker, when I read the conclusion (in blue)

For this reason, individuals should sample a minuscule portion of each of these foods to determine whether a particular food allergy is present.

I actually thought to myself ..."Hmmm What is the ulterior motive for this recommendation in the blue

-- to confirm if the number of emergency visits go down ?
OR
--- to see if one gets a small reaction and NOT a large reaction when eating a miniscule amount, thereby avoid this food all together ?


That's what I wrote on my paper [see if emergency visits go up or down | see if one gets a small reaction only and not a large reaction ] and I thought the answer would have to do with these ulterior motives.

Experts -- do you think, this is an example of overshooting ? I should perhaps stick within the confines of whatever the conclusion is saying and NOT look for ultimate motives / assumptions

Just wondering from a take-away perspective ....

[JbhB682]

Question 2 - As part of the CR drills, when analyzing wrong answers -- tend to ask "what should the question stem / conclusion have been instead in order to select this wrong answer"

I thought the answer D would be accurate if this was an evaluation question and the conclusion was instead

Conclusion : Individuals should sample EACH type of food to determine if they are allergic to this food or not

Had this been the conclusion, i think D would have been right

Thoughts ?

[esledge]

That's what I wrote on my paper [see if emergency visits go up or down | see if one gets a small reaction only and not a large reaction ] and I thought the answer would have to do with these ulterior motives.

Experts -- do you think, this is an example of overshooting ? I should perhaps stick within the confines of whatever the conclusion is saying and NOT look for ultimate motives / assumptions

Just wondering from a take-away perspective ....

The idea of "ulterior motives" makes me nervous, mainly because this is how I made a lot of errors when first learning the GMAT. I would approach Assumption CR with the idea that "assumptions" were what the author was secretly thinking but not saying...so I'd read, looking for the author's secret bias/agenda/ulterior motive. As a result, I would often pick the wrong answer.

"Stick within the confines of whatever the conclusion is saying" <---This is exactly it! When in doubt, go back to the exact words of the conclusion.

[esledge]

Question 2 - As part of the CR drills, when analyzing wrong answers -- tend to ask "what should the question stem / conclusion have been instead in order to select this wrong answer"

I thought the answer D would be accurate if this was an evaluation question and the conclusion was instead

Conclusion : Individuals should sample EACH type of food to determine if they are allergic to this food or not

Had this been the conclusion, i think D would have been right

Thoughts ?

I think your review time would be better spent thinking "how did this wrong answer fail to address this conclusion/argument?" rather than wishful rewriting of the argument to make wrong answers right. The former will help you identify wrong answer patterns from one question to another; the latter will make it seem like all wrong answers are unique (they aren't).

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - one follow up on D. While I agree E is the OA (and I understand why), I do think that D also provides two alternative paths :

Recommendation : Individuals should sample a minuscule portion of the eight foods to determine whether a food allergy is present.

In option D,
One path (= No) clears the way for the recommendation to achieve its intended goal
and
Another path ( Yes) , makes it harder for recommendation to achieve its intended goal.

Specifically

- if D was true, this would make it much "HARDER" for the recommendation to achieve its intended goal (because now it could be you are allergic to the food you are eating in small quantities only because you are allergic to some other food)

- if D was false, this would make it much "EASIER" for the recommendation to achieve its intended goal (because now if you are indeed allergic to the food you have eaten in small quantities , you know it is because of the miniscule food only and not because of effects of any other food)

Doesn't this create alternative paths as well ?

[esledge]

Hi Emily - one follow up on D. While I agree E is the OA (and I understand why), I do think that D also provides two alternative paths :

Recommendation : Individuals should sample a minuscule portion of the eight foods to determine whether a food allergy is present.

In option D,
One path (= No) clears the way for the recommendation to achieve its intended goal
and
Another path ( Yes) , makes it harder for recommendation to achieve its intended goal.

Specifically

- if D was true, this would make it much "HARDER" for the recommendation to achieve its intended goal (because now it could be you are allergic to the food you are eating in small quantities only because you are allergic to some other food)

- if D was false, this would make it much "EASIER" for the recommendation to achieve its intended goal (because now if you are indeed allergic to the food you have eaten in small quantities , you know it is because of the miniscule food only and not because of effects of any other food)

Doesn't this create alternative paths as well ?

Watch out! You dropped an important word from the conclusion, which is:
For this reason, individuals should sample a minuscule portion of each of these foods to determine whether a particular food allergy is present.
The conclusion is just about testing and identifying allergies to these eight foods. By mentioning "OTHER types of food," (D) is off topic: "other" could refer to others among the eight foods, but it could also refer to other foods entirely, not including any of the eight.

"Other" in the wording of a choice nearly always means that it is wrong.