Official Explanation

The argument explains that school officials plan to limit the sugar intake of students in school by replacing sugary drinks with less sugary drinks in school vending machines. To undermine this plan, the correct answer must demonstrate that the consumption of sugar by students will not be dramatically reduced.

(A) A comparison between unsweetened fruit juices and bottled water is not relevant, as these are both less sugary alternatives to high-calorie sugary drinks.

(B) The intention of the school officials’ plan is to limit the intake of sugar by students. Access to sugary drinks outside of school is certainly a factor in students' total sugar intake. However, the possibility that students might consume sugar elsewhere fails to undermine the school officials’ plan to restrict access to sugary drinks at school. As a result of the restricted access during school hours, those students who have access to sugary drinks outside of school may still consume less sugar than they otherwise would.

(C) The fact that certain alternatives to sugary drinks contain ingredients that cause health concerns is irrelevant to the argument. Students would still be consuming less sugar.

(D) CORRECT. If most of the sugar that students consume in school comes from snack foods rather than drinks, replacing the drinks with healthier alternatives will do little to curb the intake of sugar.

(E) This statistic is not directly relevant to the argument, since it is unclear whether these drinks are consumed at school. If the drinks were consumed at school, this answer choice would strengthen rather than undermine the school officials’ plan.

Answer: D