Q12 - Consumer Advocate: Even if one can

[smiller]

Question Type:
Identify the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
The first sentence of the stimulus is the conclusion. The second and third sentences are premises that explain why a heavier can of fruit or vegetables might not contain more food.

Answer Anticipation:
We should look for an answer choice that matches the first sentence of the stimulus. The correct answer might be a rewording of the conclusion, but the meaning should not change.

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Choice (A) is correct. It's a simple rewording of the first sentence of the stimulus.

(B) This is one of the premises.

(C) This is also one of the premises.

(D) This seems close, but doesn't exactly match the conclusion. The consumer advocate's conclusion specifically compares one can of food that weighs more than another, while "cans of a given weight" in choice (D) implies a comparison between cans that weigh the same. Also, choice (D) specifically compares cans from different companies, while the consumer advocate's conclusion doesn't necessarily involve cans from different companies.

(E) This is also not an exact match with the conclusion. We have to be careful, because it seems close, but the advocate's conclusion is specifically about the amount of food in the heavier can, not the amount of water. Wouldn't a giant, restaurant-sized can of peaches usually contain more water than a small, snack-sized one? The consumer advocate might not be concerned about that as long as the giant can also contains more peaches. The problem is that the larger can could be almost all water, and not contain more peaches. That's the consumer advocate's point.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer to an Identify the Conclusion question will have the same meaning as the conclusion in the stimulus. Watch out for answers that seem similar, but actually have a different meaning.

#officialexplanation