Press release: A comprehensive review evaluating the medical studies

Press release: A comprehensive review evaluating the medical studies done up to the present time has found no reason to think that drinking coffee in normal amounts harms the coffee-drinker's heart. So, coffee drinkers can relax and enjoy their beverage—it is safe to drink coffee.

Type-weakness
Core- Drinking coffee in normal amounts does not harm the heart

(A) The review was only an evaluation of studies and did not itself undertake to study patients.- incorrect; this makes us doubt the truth of the premise
(B) The health of the heart is not identical with the general health of the body. - Correct - we generalized the effects on heart to those of the entire body
(C) Coffee drinkers might choose to eat along with their coffee foods containing substances that harm the heart. - Out of scope - we are interested on the effect of only coffee
(D) Other beverages besides coffee might contain stimulants that have some effect on the heart. - Out of scope
(E) Drinking unusually large amounts of coffee could be caused by stress that itself directly harms the heart.- incorrect; even here coffee itself is not the cause of the harm

Answer B

HI! What pattern is this question?

Why its option B? As per my understanding the author is focusing o.n heart and not the entire body

Press release: A comprehensive review evaluating the medical studies done up to the present time has found no reason to think that drinking coffee in normal amounts harms the coffee-drinker's heart. So, coffee drinkers can relax and enjoy their beverage—it is safe to drink coffee.

Which one of the following points to a weakness in the reasoning in the press release's argument?

Question type: Flaw in the argument (Note: Just because the word “weakness” appears in the stem, it does not necessarily mean that this is a weaken the argument question.)

Conclusion: Coffee is safe to drink since it does not harm the heart.

Task at hand: Find an option that shows the flaw in the reasoning presented to come up with this conclusion.

(A) The review was only an evaluation of studies and did not itself undertake to study patients. What information was finally used during the review is not the flaw in the reasoning that has been presented.

(B) The health of the heart is not identical with the general health of the body. When the author says that coffee is safe to drink because it does not harm the heart, he is assuming that the health of the heart is a general representation of the general health of the body. If not for this flawed assumption, he could not have come to the conclusion.

(C) Coffee drinkers might choose to eat along with their coffee foods containing substances that harm the heart. This option tells us that what is being eaten could be harmful. Not a flaw in this argument.

(D) Other beverages besides coffee might contain stimulants that have some effect on the heart. Not relevant.

(E) Drinking unusually large amounts of coffee could be caused by stress that itself directly harms the heart. This option is saying that stress harms the heart. Not a flaw in this argument.

- Nitha Jay

B and C(kind of) stand chance. C bring foods that may cause harm if taken along with coffee. However, whether it is coffee or other food item or that combination of both that causes harm, we are not sure. Thus, C doesn't weakens the argument - it is just like D.
D is easy since it takes only other beverages which is not relevant.

B wins because one can't be relaxed if coffee harms body in general, if not heart.

Answer B.

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.