Something seems wrong about the explanation in
KAPLAN for this question. Would like your opinions-
"According to a recent study, a diet that is free of meat and dairy products greatly reduces the risk of suffering a heart attack. The study cites the fact that only 10 percent of those who consume such a diet suffer a heart attack at some point in their lives.
Which of the following would most seriously weaken the argument above?
A) Diets free of meat and dairy are low in calcium, which can lead to bone density decreases
B) Those who consume only dairy but not meat are twice as likely to suffer a heart attack as those who consume neither meat nor dairy
C) Some people who consume neither dairy nor meat suffer two or more heart attacks over the course of a lifetime
D) Meat and dairy products are high in low-density cholesterol, which is known to harden arteries and cause other heart problems
E) Of those who consume dairy and meat, 7 % regularly suffer heart attacks over the course of their lifetime"
My answer is A, however
KAPLAN says E. Can anyone please explain (not the same explanation as
KAPLAN)
A addresses bone density issues which have nothing to do with heart attacks. E discusses heart attacks and shows that those who maintain a diet that includes dairy and meat actually have a lower rate of heart attack (7% as compared to dairy and meet-free diets' rate of 10%). This fact hurts the argument. At first you think "Oh, 10%, that's really low. Sounds like a great idea!" but then you realize that if you do eat dairy and meet, you'd lower that percentage from 10% to 7% you're better off. That undermines the conclusion in the stem.
close
55% (02:09) correct
