Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 15:00

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 25
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 13

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Nov 2009, 03:58
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (02:49) correct 36% (01:42) wrong based on 308 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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?
The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
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 first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 264
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 4

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Nov 2009, 08:52
IMO B
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 122
Location: France
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 15

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Nov 2009, 23:17
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 417
Location: Sydney, Australia
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 20

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Nov 2009, 23:27
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
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 62
Schools: Wharton, Kellogg, Duke (Health care management)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 3

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Nov 2009, 08:08
If you look at at the first part, only B & C is aligned with it. And second part of C is wrong.
Hence B.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 256
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 364 [0], given: 3

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Nov 2009, 10:10
I more B.. C,D,E far from being correct.. A and B almost on similar lines but B appears to be better answer..
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Nov 2009, 12:20
For sure, B
Think this is a <700 question
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1666
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 533 [0], given: 36

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Mar 2011, 08:01
It's B.
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 5
Location: India
Schools: ISB, NSU, NTU
WE 1: 6 year as a HR personal in Govt. Sec.
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [2] , given: 1

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Mar 2011, 09:30
2
KUDOS
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.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 357 [0], given: 123

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Mar 2011, 00:05
"though" throws away the answer. B it is. I found GMAT cr to be relatively easier than LSAT. That's very subjective though.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 175
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 8

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Mar 2011, 01:04
+1 FOR B
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 82
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Sep 2011, 08:04
B...
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 31
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.59
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 13

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 May 2012, 10:11
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.

1) study is inconclusive

2) scientist make claim that such fish, lean, does not lower risk of cancer

so B it is
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 22

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 May 2012, 01:39
Arguement:
Omega 3 fatty acid contained fish reduces the risk of cancer than does the lean fish that has no essential fats.

Conclusion:
Omega 3 fats reduces cancer occurance.

The first bold face statement neither supports not negates the argument.
The second bold face statment is part of the conclusion and supports the conclusion as well.

Only option B has these properties.
Director
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 727
Location: India
GPA: 3.21
WE: Business Development (Other)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 742 [0], given: 723

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jul 2014, 01:30
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?

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

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

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

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

“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10370
Followers: 996

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 0

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Aug 2015, 12:17
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10370
Followers: 996

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 0

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2016, 09:04
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.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2016
Posts: 80
Location: Greece
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 2.9
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 61

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Jan 2017, 13:01
It might sound a bit silly but how a Fact go against a scientific finding?
I mean the first one is just a fact : Previous studies had been considered inconclusive.
The second one though, is a finding! : The lack of omega-3 is a reason why some people develop kidney cancer at lower rates.

How can a fact (that previous findings were inconclusive) go against a finding?
_________________

+1 Kudos if you like the post

Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen   [#permalink] 20 Jan 2017, 13:01
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Recently, a team of scientists digging through a tar pit unearthed a 3 03 Oct 2016, 16:28
11 A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen 10 02 Jan 2017, 21:49
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen 0 30 Jul 2014, 01:30
3 According to a recent study, fifteen corporations in the 7 26 Jun 2015, 01:24
11 Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new 32 06 Jul 2016, 01:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.