UkrHurricane wrote:
Could someone clarify my doubt. I was choosing between D and B, but in D, we are told that high doses of vitamin C ... reduce SLIGHTLY one’s resistance to certain common infectious diseases, while people who regularly consume high doses of vitamin C supplements have a SIGNIFICANTLY lower than average risk of heart disease. I just thought that it was not enough for a negative SLIGHT effect to outweigh a SIGNIFICANT positive result. Where am I wrong?
Think about it..B) just compares consumption of vitaminc C vs other dietary changes, do we need such a comparisson? Not at all. I think you are assuming that other dietary changes are followed by average people, and that assumption is not correct at all, what if average people do not follow any dietary change at all? If this one is true your assumption would not be correct.
For example, suppose that "others dietary changes" reduce the risk by 50% (50% remaining risk), that Vitamin C reduces it by 45% (55% remaining risk), and that the average average people's risk is 70%, despite results of other diets, taking Vitamin C reduces risk.
On the other hand D) inserts doubt in our conclusion:
People who take vitamin C supplements tend to be HEALTHIER than average,by stating that actually Vitamin C reduce SLIGHTLY one's resistance. What is going to be the effect of reducing SLIGHTLY one's resistance? We actually do not know the degree of the final effect of that "SLIGHTLY" reduction, so it could be a SIGNIFICANT or SLIGHTLY reduction of risk of heart disease, but for sure this one makes us doubt whether people who take the vitamin tend to be Healthier.
Best,
_________________
Make your mercy overcome your wrath