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:
Researchers have noticed that people whose blood shows [#permalink]
08 Oct 2006, 21:29
76% (02:03) correct
23% (01:04) wrong based on 82 sessions
Researchers have noticed that people whose blood shows abnormally low levels of calcium usually have laryngeal polyps, which can permanently damage vocal cords and result in partial or even total loss of voice. In order to prevent the polyps, the researchers recommend a diet high in calcium-rich foods such as dairy and green, leafy vegetables.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly suggests that it would not be advisable to follow the researchers'
(A) Dairy contains compounds that are difficult for many people to digest. (B) Laryngeal polyps sometimes disappear without treatment. (C) Laryngeal polyps cause a change in body chemistry that blocks the absorption of calcium. (D) Fresh vegetables are not always available in all seasons. (E) Low levels of calcium can sometime be remedied with vitamin pills.
Since Laryngeal polyps blocks the absorption of calcium, the diet would not be effective.
Is this a flaw or a weaken question? How to identify this? Whats the main difference between the two ? and their approaches? How to use elimination to solve this? Please provide detailed explanation.
Researchers have noticed that people whose blood shows abnormally low levels of calcium usually have laryngeal polyps, which can permanently damage vocal cords and result in partial or even total loss of voice. In order to reduce the risk of polyps, the researchers recommend a diet high in calcium-rich foods such as dairy and green, leafy vegetables.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly suggests that following the researchers' recommendation would NOT be effective?
a)Dairy contains compounds that are difficult for many people to digest.
b)Laryngeal polyps sometimes disappear without treatment.
c)Laryngeal polyps cause a change in body chemistry that blocks the absorption of calcium.
d)Fresh vegetables are not always available in all seasons.
e)Low levels of calcium can sometimes be remedied with vitamin pills.
Yes I agree with ucsfcsguy ... I was of the same opinion that eating diet rich in calcium will not "prevent" polyps if you already have it.
But I think the question is trying to emphasise on the reversal of cause and effect here.
It is not the calcium deficiency that causes polyps.
Polyps reduces calcium absorption (leading to the deficiency perhaps).
So the prevention and cure for polyps is not "intake of calcium rich diet" but something else. Hence it is not advisable to follow the researcher's plan because calcium deficiency is not the source of the problem. And C suggests this.
A is too general and besides I find that for strengthen/weaken questions, answer choices that have ambiguous words like 'many', 'some', 'sometimes' are generally not the correct answer choices because they indicate that the answer choice might hold true in some situations while not in others. Therefore these answer choices don't "most strongly" strengthen or weaken a conclusion. For this reason I would eliminate A.
Try and try until you succeed! There is just no giving up!
I just think that this is a case of a poorly worded question if C is the correct answer. Suggesting that calcium won't cure the disease (as C indicates) doesn't weaken an argument that calcium might prevent the disease. Curing and prevention are two completely different and many times unrelated issues.
They say that drinking coffee might lower the risk of colon cancer, but I'm pretty sure that drinking coffee won't cure those who already suffer from colon cancer. So does that mean that the argument for preventing cancer is weakened or invalidated? I don't think so.
Indeed C adresses the weakness of the argument, that a low level of calcium may not be the cause of the polyps.
However, the statement doesn't give any indication about the cause of the disease, so we have to consider all the possibilities.
A better question would be :
If the following are true, which of the following answer would cast the more doubt that the prescription would not be successful(something like that...). C would be a better answer.
The question with advisable is not very well formulated, I think.
If my patient could not digest something I am not sure it is effective, celarly I wouldn't prescribe it(A)
If it is proven that polyps cause low level of Ca wheras the opposite is not proved, I would prescribe it or not, depending on my personnal beliefs(thus not C).