GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 28Live Online Class with Top GRE Expert Mike Butville
08:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GRE course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP GRE OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon/Wed Sept. 28, 2026 - Dec. 9, 2026, 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
A recent study demonstrated that adults living with children consume
[#permalink]
27 May 2026, 10:18
27 May 2026, 10:18
Expert Reply
Question 1
00:00
Question Stats:
71% (01:41) correct
29% (01:52) wrong based on 24 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
A recent study demonstrated that adults living with children consume nearly five more grams of fat per day, on average, than do adults living without children. The higher fat intake among these adults is likely attributable to purchasing more low-nutrition food, such as potato chips and cookies, for the children but succumbing to temptation themselves.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the claim regarding the higher fat intake of adults living with children?
A. On average, households with children spend $ 15 more per week on low-nutrition foods than do households without children.
B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which is a high-nutrition food with a high fat content, than do households without children.
C. Children consume most of the low-nutrition food in any given household.
D. Children often have access to low-nutrition food at school via vending machines or the cafeteria.
E. Not all adults living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the claim regarding the higher fat intake of adults living with children?
A. On average, households with children spend $ 15 more per week on low-nutrition foods than do households without children.
B. Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which is a high-nutrition food with a high fat content, than do households without children.
C. Children consume most of the low-nutrition food in any given household.
D. Children often have access to low-nutrition food at school via vending machines or the cafeteria.
E. Not all adults living with children consume more grams of fat than do adults living without children.
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2932
Given Kudos: 1259
GPA: 3.39
Re: A recent study demonstrated that adults living with children consume
[#permalink]
29 May 2026, 08:04
29 May 2026, 08:04
Expert Reply
Explanation
The argument says:
Adults living with children eat more fat. This is likely because they buy more low-nutrition foods like chips and cookies for the children......and then the adults themselves eat those foods.
To weaken it, we want an alternative explanation for the higher fat intake.
B says:
“Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which is a high-nutrition food with a high fat content, than do households without children.”
This provides a different reason adults in those households might consume more fat: whole milk, not chips/cookies. If the extra fat comes from whole milk, then the claim that adults are “succumbing to temptation” from low-nutrition snack foods becomes much less convincing.
A strengthens the argument: spending more on low-nutrition foods supports the idea that those foods are present in the home.
C weakens a little, since children eat most of the snack food-but adults could still eat enough of it to explain the difference.
D is only indirectly relevant; children having access to snacks at school doesn’t tell us much about what adults eat at home.
E is irrelevant: averages can be true even if not every individual follows the pattern.
Answer: B
The argument says:
Adults living with children eat more fat. This is likely because they buy more low-nutrition foods like chips and cookies for the children......and then the adults themselves eat those foods.
To weaken it, we want an alternative explanation for the higher fat intake.
B says:
“Households with children purchase much more whole milk, which is a high-nutrition food with a high fat content, than do households without children.”
This provides a different reason adults in those households might consume more fat: whole milk, not chips/cookies. If the extra fat comes from whole milk, then the claim that adults are “succumbing to temptation” from low-nutrition snack foods becomes much less convincing.
A strengthens the argument: spending more on low-nutrition foods supports the idea that those foods are present in the home.
C weakens a little, since children eat most of the snack food-but adults could still eat enough of it to explain the difference.
D is only indirectly relevant; children having access to snacks at school doesn’t tell us much about what adults eat at home.
E is irrelevant: averages can be true even if not every individual follows the pattern.
Answer: B
Re: A recent study demonstrated that adults living with children consume
[#permalink]
30 May 2026, 04:00
30 May 2026, 04:00
Expert Reply
We're asked to weaken the idea that this higher fat intake is due to adults succumbing to temptation after buying junk food for kids.
So we need something that suggests another reason for higher fat intake in adults living with kids, or one that shows the argument's causal link is wrong.
Option analysis:
- A - Households with kids spend $ 15 more/week on low-nutrition foods. This strengthens the original logic because it supports that they have more junk food around to be tempted by.
- B - Households with kids buy much more whole milk (high-fat, but high nutrition) than those without kids.
If high-fat whole milk is bought for kids and adults drink it, that could raise adults' fat intake without having to buy/eat junk food. This provides an alternative cause for the higher fat intake other than giving in to junk food temptation. This weakens the "succumbing to temptation" explanation.
- C - Kids consume most of the low-nutrition food in any given household.
If kids eat most of it, maybe adults aren't eating much of that junk food. But it doesn't directly explain where the extra fat comes from (still could be from other sources, but less likely junk food). This doesn't rule out the junk food explanation - could just mean the small remaining portion adults eat still increases their intake by 5 g . So weakens a bit but not as clear as B.
- D - Kids have access to low-nutrition food at school.
Doesn't connect to the fat intake of adults at home.
- E - Not all adults living with kids eat more fat than adults without kids.
This doesn't matter; the study reports an average difference - not that every such adult has higher intake. So irrelevant.
Best choice: B
Provides an alternative high-fat food adults would consume (whole milk) that is not low-nutrition, so the "buying low-nutrition food for kids and succumbing" logic is not the full explanation.
So we need something that suggests another reason for higher fat intake in adults living with kids, or one that shows the argument's causal link is wrong.
Option analysis:
- A - Households with kids spend $ 15 more/week on low-nutrition foods. This strengthens the original logic because it supports that they have more junk food around to be tempted by.
- B - Households with kids buy much more whole milk (high-fat, but high nutrition) than those without kids.
If high-fat whole milk is bought for kids and adults drink it, that could raise adults' fat intake without having to buy/eat junk food. This provides an alternative cause for the higher fat intake other than giving in to junk food temptation. This weakens the "succumbing to temptation" explanation.
- C - Kids consume most of the low-nutrition food in any given household.
If kids eat most of it, maybe adults aren't eating much of that junk food. But it doesn't directly explain where the extra fat comes from (still could be from other sources, but less likely junk food). This doesn't rule out the junk food explanation - could just mean the small remaining portion adults eat still increases their intake by 5 g . So weakens a bit but not as clear as B.
- D - Kids have access to low-nutrition food at school.
Doesn't connect to the fat intake of adults at home.
- E - Not all adults living with kids eat more fat than adults without kids.
This doesn't matter; the study reports an average difference - not that every such adult has higher intake. So irrelevant.
Best choice: B
Provides an alternative high-fat food adults would consume (whole milk) that is not low-nutrition, so the "buying low-nutrition food for kids and succumbing" logic is not the full explanation.
