Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Dietary researcher: A recent study reports that laboratory [#permalink]
11 May 2010, 09:47
67% (01:00) correct
33% (03:15) wrong based on 3 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Dietary researcher: A recent study reports that laboratory animals that were fed reduced-calorie diets lived longer than laboratory animals whose caloric intake was not reduced. In response, some doctors are advocating reduced-calorie diets, in the belief that North Americans’ life spans can thereby be extended. However, this conclusion is not supported. Laboratory animals tend to eat much more than animals in their natural habitats, which leads to their having a shorter life expectancy. Restricting their diets merely brings their caloric intake back to natural optimal levels and reinstates their normal life spans. Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the dietary researcher’s argument? (A) North Americans, on average, consume a higher number of calories than the optimal number of calories for a human diet. (B) North Americans with high-fat, low-calorie diets generally have a shorter life expectancy than North Americans with low-fat, low-calorie diets. (C) Not all scientific results that have important implications for human health are based on studies of laboratory animals. (D) Some North Americans who follow reduced-calorie diets are long-lived. (E) There is a strong correlation between diet and longevity in some species of animals
This is interesting. I think it boils down to what exactly is the conclusion of the Dietary Researcher (DR).
My understanding is that the DR conclusion is:
Not true: In response, some doctors are advocating reduced-calorie diets, in the belief that North Americans’ life spans can thereby be extended.
Supporting Premise (?):
Laboratory animals tend to eat much more than animals in their natural habitats, which leads to their having a shorter life expectancy. Restricting their diets merely brings their caloric intake back to natural optimal levels and reinstates their normal life spans.
Hence, i concluded that it cannot be A?
B provides for an alternate reason (fat) for influencing the length of the life span of North Americans? Hence, "WEAKENING" the conclusion as required by question right?
Last edited by ohfred on 11 May 2010, 10:24, edited 2 times in total.
I'm so enjoying to do GMAT , LSAT CR . They are so freaken cool
In this sentence , it is clearly that A is the winner .
Reseacher found that when you are old enough to have sex , sex is good for you and for your partner . But it is not applicable for you .
Reseacher assume that you are not old enough to have sex --> to weaken it you need to say that you are old enough to have sex .
This is an analogous comparing with this sentence . Research claim that this only work because the subject eat more than its normal diet --> to weaken it, we can say that Northern American consume larger that the norm does
Re: Dietary Research
25 May 2010, 01:27