In a small town, many teenagers have developed a strong aversion to eating vegetables. To combat this issue, some parents have started blending vegetables into smoothies, believing that this will help their children consume the necessary nutrients. However, these smoothies often contain high levels of sugar and artificial ingredients. Given that the alternative is poor nutrition, which could lead to health issues, parents feel justified in using these smoothies.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the argument's conclusion?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

A. Many teenagers prefer fruit smoothies over vegetable smoothies, which may lead to better nutrition.

B. Some vegetables can be made more appealing by roasting them with spices.

Correct

C. Poor nutrition can also result from a lack of physical activity.

D. The sugar in smoothies is often derived from natural fruit sources.

E. In colder climates, the consumption of vegetables can be increased by incorporating them into warm dishes.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument concludes that parents should use smoothies to ensure their children get necessary nutrients, despite the high sugar content. To undermine this conclusion, we need to show that there are better alternatives to ensure children consume vegetables. Option B states that some vegetables can be…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

DivyanshMar 18, 2025

Thank for sharing!

PriteshDec 18, 2024

Thank for sharing!

NaomiFeb 1, 2024

Can you explain more?

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.