PrepTest 130

Incorrect. This answer brings up another limitation of N5, which, if anything, aligns with the argument.

Incorrect. This answer brings up a negative of N5, which, if anything, aligns with the argument.

Incorrect. Whether they pay attention to it or not, they are consuming a certain number of calories. And if that calorie count goes up when someone is trying to reduce it, then that's a downside of N5.

Incorrect. Knowledge of the number of calories in N5 is out of scope—what's relevant is how it affects the overall diets of those who are trying to lower fat and calorie intake.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
People trying to eat less fat/calories use fat substitutes like N5, but they feel hungrier after eating it and thus consume more calories than before using N5, so N5 is of no use to them.

Answer Anticipation:
Check out that conclusion—it's exceptionally strong, stating that something is of "no use" to consumers. While the stimulus might rule out one benefit of using N5—consuming fewer calories—it doesn't rule out all potential benefits of using the fat substitute. In fact, the stimulus presents two goals that the individuals who consider using it are trying to hit—eating fewer calories, and eating less fat. The argument does establish that N5 doesn't help people eat fewer calories, but maybe it does reduce fat intake. Information supporting that, or any other potential benefit of N5, would highlight a flaw in this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a benefit of using N5—even if people don't consume fewer calories, they do consume less fat, which was a stated goal of those considering using N5. This suggests that they do have a use for N5, invalidating the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion is extreme, make sure that the premises justify it. Here, stating something is of "no use" rules out any potential benefit of the product. Especially when multiple goals of using it are listed, there's a good chance the argument is ignoring a pro.