A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study

Question

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.  Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive , the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.  Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s , and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.

B. The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.

C. The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.

D. The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.

E. The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.

yangsta8 · Answer

I thought it was B as well. Here is my reasoning:

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles? 
 The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study. 
 There is no evidence the first portion is an opinion. And the second part seems to be a fact that was previously known. Wrong.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim. 
 The argument is that increasing intake of fatty fish -> lowering rate of kidney cancer. The first BF states that this relationship is inconclusive and hence it goes against the argument or at the least does not support it. The second part uses logic to prove the opposite of consuming fatty fish.  Correct .

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.  
The scientists are trying to solve whether fatty fish intake affects rate of kidney cancer.The first BF does not directly present this as a quandary. Wrong.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument. 
 As stated above the first BF at best does not support the argument. The second piece at best supports the claim by logically deducing what would happen by consuming non fatty fish. Wrong.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
 The first BF does not explain anything but presents information that goes against the conclusion. Wrong

arbinose · Answer

Both the bold face arguments are facts, hence premise. The first one is undoubtedly a fact which goes against the argument that fatty fish helps in reducing the cancer risk.
Second bold face argument provides a support to the argument as lean fish lacks omega 3 fatty acid, its consumption does not affect the occurring of cancer.

the evident answer is "B"
though it seems too easy to be a 700 level question. I can be wrong.

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer;
The study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer. 
 Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive,  the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. 
  Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s , and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.

We can decipher that The first boldface statement is a premise(seems to be against the conclusion but lets leave it for now) and second statement does support the conclusion by aiding it with necessary information. i.e., it tells the one of the reasons behind the conclusion.

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study............... nothing is uncovered here.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in  support  of the scientists’ claim......... This looks promising but lets keep it aside.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary............ .second is a fact not a quandary of first.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.............. second is not against the argument.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation........... second is not challenging the first.

sun01 · Answer

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.--  Not an opinion.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.-- seems ok.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.-- there is no dilemma.  All results were conclusive.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.-- Again no claim/conclusion. simple fact/finding. Second not going against the author's conclusion

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.-- Again, first is no more an explanation. First talks about past research/studies .

mvictor · Answer

woah..took me some time to solve this bad boy...
the argument starts with the results of a study. scientists link consumption of fatty fish with the risk of cancer.
the result - who ate more - less risky to get cancer.

then we have a statement, that confronts right away what was said before - all previous studies - inconclusive.
then we have few arguments to challenge the results of the study.

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
first one is not an opinion - it's a fact. so out.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.
first one a fact - right. second one - a piece of fact to support the main point of the argument - looks good.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
first one is a fact - so out.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
the first one is not a claim.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
the first one is definitely not an explanation.

B it is.

Nightfury14 · Answer

Conclusion -  those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all. 
BF1 - "Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive" 
The scientist believe they have found a correlation between Lean fish and kidney disease, BF1 is against the argument.

BF2 -   Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s ,
Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.
As per the Scientist's => Higher intake of Lean fish containing omega 3 fatty acids results to lower chances of kidney cancer.
BF2 undermines the scientist's claim as Lean fish is not rich in omega 3 fatty acids.

First part of option B seems fine --> Second part doesn't fit.
 sayantanc2k

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let us read the paragraph provided -

the first sentence is a fact (before the semicolon). the second sentence (after the semicolon) again states another fact. (the findings of the study).

Let us now look at the third sentence - 
This sentence talks about the scientists' conclusion from the findings. The conclusion is -  Omega 3 fatty acids --> lower rates of kidney cancer. in the study

Note that the first part of the sentence - " though all previous studies on the relationship between ...  " provides a consideration against the main conclusion of the argument.
Note that ' though ' is a contrast indicator.

The next sentence provides support to the scientists' conclusion. It suggests that lean fish have little to no omega fatty acids.

A - "The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument." - no it is not. the first part goes against the main conclusion.
"the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study." - nowhere does the paragraph tell us that this information was uncovered in the study. This information is given to as an additional information, separate from the study's findings.

B - correct answer. look at the discussion above.

C - the scientists are not trying to solve this - "All previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive"
They are trying to solve - how eating fatty fish leads to less risk for developing carcinoma.
the second boldface is not a result of the 1st boldface. It just states a fact.

D - the first does not support the conclusion. Note the usage of "though"
the second boldface does in fact support the conclusion.

E - the first goes against the argument.
the second boldface does not challenge the first boldface.
i.e. 'lean fish is rarely rich in omega fatty acids' definitely does not challenge 'All previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive'

Nightfury14 · Answer

Let us read the paragraph provided -

The first sentence is a fact (before the semicolon). 
The second sentence (after the semicolon) - "the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma" - states another fact. (the findings of the study).

Let us now look at the third sentence - 
This sentence talks about the scientists' conclusion from the findings. The scientists' conclusion is -   Increased intake    of Omega 3 fatty acids --> lower rates of kidney cancer. in the study

One way of interpretation =>  The BF2 statement - "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s" - does not give direct support but does reaffirm (Though lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3's, those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish/ increased their consumption of the fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma.

Second interpretation - The Argument concludes - "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and  those in the study who ate lean fish  (including those with increased consumption) had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all."
This statement portrays BF 2 against the Scientists' claim - "Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids"

I first interpretation and second interpretation refers to different opinion from BF2.

CrackVerbalGMAT  - any gaps in my understanding - plz explain.

sayantanc2k · Answer

It seems that you got confused between lean fish and fatty fish.

1st sentence (before semicolon): fact (as you stated)
2nd sentence (after semicolon) : fact (as you stated) / evidence in support of conclusion
3rd sentence (independent clause): conclusion (omega 3 helps resist renal cancer)
3rd sentence (dependent clause - "though..... inconclusive"): fact against the conclusion (hence the "though" clause): BF1
4th sentence: supports conclusion ( fatty fish eaters have less risk of renal cancer than lean fish eaters - fatty fish have more omega 3 than lean fish have (BF 2) ---> conclusion: omega 3 helps resist renal cancer )> BF2 thus supports the conclusion.

Therefore option B is correct.

A_Nishith · Answer

First boldface statement:  "Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive..."
This statement notes that prior studies did not establish a clear relationship between fatty fish consumption and reduced kidney cancer risk. It presents a fact about the inconclusiveness of past research, which might initially seem to challenge or go against the new study’s findings.

Second boldface statement:  "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all."
This statement presents evidence from the study that supports the argument: it shows a contrast between the effects of fatty and lean fish on kidney cancer risk, which strengthens the link between omega-3 intake (found in fatty fish) and reduced cancer risk.

Now, let’s evaluate the options:

Option A: Incorrect. The first boldface is not an opinion; it’s a factual statement about prior inconclusive studies.

Option B: Correct.  The first boldface presents a fact that contrasts with the current argument by noting the inconclusiveness of past research. The second boldface provides part of the logical reasoning that supports the scientists' claim about omega-3s and reduced kidney cancer risk.
 
Option C: Incorrect. The first boldface does not present a "quandary" the scientists are solving, but rather a background fact about past studies.

Option D: Incorrect. The first boldface does not support the argument but rather sets up a contrast. The second boldface supports the argument rather than opposing it.

Option E: Incorrect. The first boldface is not an explanation but a statement of fact. The second boldface supports rather than challenges the argument.

Answer: The correct answer is B.

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards