GRE General TestAnalytical WritingHard
A public health official proposes a city-wide ban on sugary drinks in schools, arguing that this will significantly reduce childhood obesity rates. Opponents argue that such a ban infringes on personal choice and will likely be ineffective as students can still consume sugary drinks outside of school. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the opponents' argument that the ban will likely be ineffective?
- AA survey of parents reveals strong support for measures that promote healthier eating habits in schools.
- BMany schools already offer healthier beverage options, but students often choose sugary drinks when available.
- COther cities that implemented similar bans reported a slight increase in the sale of sugary drinks at nearby convenience stores.
- DStudies indicate that the majority of sugary drink consumption by children occurs within school environments.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Studies indicate that the majority of sugary drink consumption by children occurs within school environments.
The opponents argue ineffectiveness because students can consume sugary drinks *outside* of school. If the *majority* of consumption happens *inside* school, then a ban specifically targeting school consumption would be highly effective, directly weakening the opponents' ineffectiveness claim.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This strengthens the proponents' argument for the ban's acceptability but doesn't address its effectiveness.
- B. This strengthens the idea that students prefer sugary drinks, which might imply ineffectiveness, but doesn't address the 'outside of school' part of the opponents' argument.
- C. This strengthens the opponents' argument for ineffectiveness by showing a compensatory behavior, thus it doesn't weaken their argument.
Countering a Compensatory Behavior Argument
To counter an argument that an action will be ineffective due to compensatory behavior, one must show that the compensatory behavior is either unlikely, insufficient, or less impactful than the primary action.
- Identify the predicted compensatory behavior.
- Assess the magnitude or likelihood of that behavior.
- Find evidence that the primary action will still have a significant impact despite the compensation.
Memory trick: Closing the loophole in the 'it won't work' claim.