|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a [#permalink]
 27 Feb 2004, 21:25
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (01:22) wrong based on 0 sessions
The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. So individuals who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.
Which one of the following, if true, most weaken the argument?
(A) The differences in average fat intake between countries are often due to the varying makeup of traditional diets.
(B) The countries with a high average fat intake tend to be among the wealthiest in the world.
(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.
(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.
(E) An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
E for me
A) out of scope
B) out of scope
C) we are interested with the how to reduce the risk of cancer, not to determine whether cancer is a prominent cause of death
D) out of scope
E) higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country. This means that an individual in that country who has a low fat intake will still be more likely to have cancer. Therefore, reducing the fat intake WILL NOT necessary reduce the risk of having cancer if you live in a country where the average fat intake is high and E points it out
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 417
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
C...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 512
Location: In the middle of nowhere
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
C....
Vivek.
_________________
"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
Guys, if you post C, any of you can defend your stance?
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 417
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Paul, the second premise states that lower the fat intake, lower is the incidence of cancer.......C says that Cancer is the main cause for countries with a lower fat intake, which is a STRONG clear violation of the premise.........I just feel this way......might be wrong 
For Choice E the average person has high intake, but there might be one or 2 persons who have low intake........i dont see how this weakens the argument. Also in ur explanation I dont understand how u derived ur 2nd statement..."This means that............................."
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
Thanx for showing your reasoning. I will stick with my original answer though. Hmmm, I see you edited your answer. I'll edit mine and try to explain my reasoning further.
From premise:
high average fat intake country --> high likelihood of cancer
low average fat intake country --> low likelihood of cancer
Conclusion: eat less fat and there will be less chance for you to get cancer
The flaw in the reasoning is that if someone who reduces his fat consumption, but yet lives in a country which has a high fat intake, his likelihood of having cancer is still high. From what we know, it is the average country fat intake and not the individual fat intake which determines the likelihood of cancer. Therefore, if someone reduces his fat intake, he will NOT decrease his incidence of cancer if he lives in a high average fat intake country.
E points out the weakness by saying what about an individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake who has a diet with a low fat intake? This person would have a high likelihood of cancer notwithstanding his fat intake because he lives in a high fat intake country. Therefore, the conclusion that if you eat less fat, you will lessen your chances of having cancer will be seriously weakened
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
The official answer is D.
I'll post my explanation later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
D?! I really don't see the connection...
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 417
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
kPadma.......Explanation Please???Thanks!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
cbrf3 wrote: kPadma.......Explanation Please???Thanks!!
Folks,
I also selected answer choice C. But the official answer is D.
This is an LSAT question. So, I donтАЩt suspect the quality of the question.
Here is my guess.
This question is testing our understanding of correlation vs causation.
The argument does not mention that fat causes cancer. What it says
is that there is a high incidence of cancer death in countries where
the fat intake is more.
(A) OOS
(B) OOS [= Out of Scope ]
(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.
This answer choice comes second to answer choice D.
It is talking about other countries, which may or may not be relevant to the country in discussion.
(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.
The argument says cancer and fat in take are correlated.
But, this answer choice adds another variable in to the
Correlation relation, and that new parameter is pollution.
Cancer deaths are positively correlated with fat intake. << From the argument
Cancer deaths are positively correlated with pollution. << From answer D
So, there could be at least two causes and we don't know
which one is causing the cancer.
(E) An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.
One person out of 100 million people << Statistics always ignores
these situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
I see your point. However, this question is somewhat of a stretch... I think that conclusion is just unappropriate and should have been changed to "So countries who want to reduce their average risk of cancer should reduce their average fat intake"
It is indeed true that 1 person may not change statistics but E also points out the flaw in the reasoning. 1 person may or may not change his chances of having cancer depending on the country in which he lives because it is really the country, as determined by the premise, which determines his/her likelihood of having it.
By adding another "potential" variable which may cause cancer, why would B not be a contender then? It could be that the richer you are, the more likely you get cancer. I think that for GMAT questions, we should stick to what is given and try to directly attack the premises with what is given only... Therefore, I stand by E
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
