A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer;
The study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.
Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.
Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.

We can decipher that The first boldface statement is a premise(seems to be against the conclusion but lets leave it for now) and second statement does support the conclusion by aiding it with necessary information. i.e., it tells the one of the reasons behind the conclusion.

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study...............nothing is uncovered here.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.........This looks promising but lets keep it aside.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.............second is a fact not a quandary of first.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument..............second is not against the argument.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation...........second is not challenging the first.

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.-- Not an opinion.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.--seems ok.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.-- there is no dilemma. All results were conclusive.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.--Again no claim/conclusion. simple fact/finding. Second not going against the author's conclusion

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.--Again, first is no more an explanation. First talks about past research/studies.

woah..took me some time to solve this bad boy...
the argument starts with the results of a study. scientists link consumption of fatty fish with the risk of cancer.
the result - who ate more - less risky to get cancer.

then we have a statement, that confronts right away what was said before - all previous studies - inconclusive.
then we have few arguments to challenge the results of the study.

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
first one is not an opinion - it's a fact. so out.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.
first one a fact - right. second one - a piece of fact to support the main point of the argument - looks good.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
first one is a fact - so out.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
the first one is not a claim.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
the first one is definitely not an explanation.

B it is.

Conclusion - those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.
BF1 - "Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive"
The scientist believe they have found a correlation between Lean fish and kidney disease, BF1 is against the argument.

BF2 - Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s,
Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.
As per the Scientist's => Higher intake of Lean fish containing omega 3 fatty acids results to lower chances of kidney cancer.
BF2 undermines the scientist's claim as Lean fish is not rich in omega 3 fatty acids.

First part of option B seems fine --> Second part doesn't fit.
sayantanc2k

Let us read the paragraph provided -

the first sentence is a fact (before the semicolon). the second sentence (after the semicolon) again states another fact. (the findings of the study).

Let us now look at the third sentence -
This sentence talks about the scientists' conclusion from the findings. The conclusion is - Omega 3 fatty acids --> lower rates of kidney cancer. in the study

Note that the first part of the sentence - "though all previous studies on the relationship between ... " provides a consideration against the main conclusion of the argument.
Note that 'though' is a contrast indicator.

The next sentence provides support to the scientists' conclusion. It suggests that lean fish have little to no omega fatty acids.

A - "The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument." - no it is not. the first part goes against the main conclusion.
"the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study." - nowhere does the paragraph tell us that this information was uncovered in the study. This information is given to as an additional information, separate from the study's findings.

B - correct answer. look at the discussion above.

C - the scientists are not trying to solve this - "All previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive"
They are trying to solve - how eating fatty fish leads to less risk for developing carcinoma.
the second boldface is not a result of the 1st boldface. It just states a fact.

D - the first does not support the conclusion. Note the usage of "though"
the second boldface does in fact support the conclusion.

E - the first goes against the argument.
the second boldface does not challenge the first boldface.
i.e. 'lean fish is rarely rich in omega fatty acids' definitely does not challenge 'All previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive'

Let us read the paragraph provided -

The first sentence is a fact (before the semicolon).
The second sentence (after the semicolon) - "the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma" - states another fact. (the findings of the study).

Let us now look at the third sentence -
This sentence talks about the scientists' conclusion from the findings. The scientists' conclusion is - Increased intake of Omega 3 fatty acids --> lower rates of kidney cancer. in the study

One way of interpretation => The BF2 statement - "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s" - does not give direct support but does reaffirm (Though lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3's, those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish/ increased their consumption of the fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma.

Second interpretation - The Argument concludes - "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish (including those with increased consumption) had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all."
This statement portrays BF 2 against the Scientists' claim - "Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids"

I first interpretation and second interpretation refers to different opinion from BF2.

CrackVerbalGMAT - any gaps in my understanding - plz explain.

It seems that you got confused between lean fish and fatty fish.

1st sentence (before semicolon): fact (as you stated)
2nd sentence (after semicolon) : fact (as you stated) / evidence in support of conclusion
3rd sentence (independent clause): conclusion (omega 3 helps resist renal cancer)
3rd sentence (dependent clause - "though..... inconclusive"): fact against the conclusion (hence the "though" clause): BF1
4th sentence: supports conclusion (fatty fish eaters have less risk of renal cancer than lean fish eaters - fatty fish have more omega 3 than lean fish have (BF 2) ---> conclusion: omega 3 helps resist renal cancer)> BF2 thus supports the conclusion.

Therefore option B is correct.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.