Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Inference Questions

Light plastic materials, such as bottles for freezing and containers for microwave cooking, have been shown by research to release carcinogenic toxins into the liquids and foods stored therein, thus posing a health risk problem for humans. Stainless steel is a better material health-wise for preserving food by freezing while only ceramics are healthy for heating foods and liquids in a microwave.

The statements above, if true, best support which of the following assertions?



While the second part of this answer choice can be properly concluded (the passage state that only ceramics are healthy for microwave cooking), the first part of the answer choice strays too far from the original premises, which deal with light plastics and not with plastic in general.



This answer choice contradicts premise A. If there are no plastics being used, then there is no danger to humans when freezing and cooking, at least not from that carcinogens in light plastics.



This answer choice is an overgeneralization of the argument presented and strays too far from the original premises, which only refers to stainless steel being healthier for freezing. We do not know that all uses of stainless steel are healthier than those of plastics.



This answer choice assumes that the research conducted was faulty or insufficient. However, you are supposed to find a conclusion which can be drawn based on the existing premises, rather than try to discredit them. Remember, in Critical Reasoning arguments, premises are a given.



This conclusion in this answer choice is logically based on the given premises: if light plastics containers are considered unhealthy for freezing (due to the fact they release carcinogens when frozen) and stainless steel is considered more healthy, then stainless steel must release less carcinogens when frozen.

We need to research plastics further to come up with an overarching rule regarding the viability of using plastics in freezing and cooking by microwave.
Plastic containers of any type should not be used to freeze liquids or to heat food in the microwave.
No significant positive health effects on human food consumption would result from banning plastics.
In very cold conditions, stainless steel releases less carcinogens than do light plastics.
Stainless steel is healthier for humans than plastics are.