GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Mar 2019, 16:49

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study

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

Hide Tags

 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 20
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 20 Nov 2018, 03:52
1
15
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (02:28) correct 34% (02:35) wrong based on 465 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?


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.

Originally posted by adarsh12345 on 02 Nov 2009, 03:58.
Last edited by Bunuel on 20 Nov 2018, 03:52, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 374
Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 5
Location: India
Schools: ISB, NSU, NTU
WE 1: 6 year as a HR personal in Govt. Sec.
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2011, 09:30
2
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.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1108
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Apr 2016, 18:12
    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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 154
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Apr 2016, 23:51
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.
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2564
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2016, 11:27
WoundedTiger wrote:
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.


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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: In the realms of Chaos & Night
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 150
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2016, 09:51
WoundedTiger wrote:
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.


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
_________________

Good luck
=========================================================================================
"If a street performer makes you stop walking, you owe him a buck"
"If this post helps you on your GMAT journey, drop a +1 Kudo "


"Thursdays with Ron - Consolidated Verbal Master List - Updated"

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 562
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2016, 22:49
Top Contributor
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'
_________________

- CrackVerbal Prep Team

For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal

Register for the Free GMAT Video Training Course : https://www.crackverbal.com/GMAT/online

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: In the realms of Chaos & Night
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 150
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2016, 00:04
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.
_________________

Good luck
=========================================================================================
"If a street performer makes you stop walking, you owe him a buck"
"If this post helps you on your GMAT journey, drop a +1 Kudo "


"Thursdays with Ron - Consolidated Verbal Master List - Updated"

Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2884
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jan 2017, 00:12
Nightfury14 wrote:
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.


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.
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3705
Premium Member
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2019, 15:38
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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study   [#permalink] 03 Jan 2019, 15:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.