According to a study, after a week of high-altitude living, twenty men

According to a study, after a week of high-altitude living, twenty men had slimmed down. The men, middle-aged residents of low-altitude areas, had been taken to a research station at 2,650 meters (8,694 feet) above sea level. They had unrestricted access to food and were forbidden vigorous exercise, yet they lost an average of 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) during their one-week stay. Clearly, the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss, since __________.

Type- strengthen
Conclusion- the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes caused the weight loss

A. a decrease in oxygen intake has been shown to depress appetite- Correct
B. the men all participated in the same kinds of exercise during their stay- incorrect, we are only told that the men were forbidden vigorous exercise
C. the foods available to the men had fewer calories than the foods they usually ate- incorrect, they had unrestricted access to food
D. exercise at higher altitudes is more difficult than exercise at lower altitudes is- incorrect, this does not strengthen our claim. Also, we do not even know whether these men excercised
E. several weeks after returning home, the men still weighed less than they had before the study - irrelevant, what happens after returning home is not relevant

Answer A

All men were not allowed to exercise, they were given unlimited food, but still they lost weight!!!
There must be something which caused all of them to loose weight?
The passage tries to explain the same by saying that low O2 at high altitude might have caused it because...
In order to complete the passage what should follow is the reason why low O2 might have caused them to loose weight.
Only option A provides that reason.
Hope it makes sense.

Understanding the passage

According to a study, after a week of high-altitude living, twenty men had slimmed down.

• There was a study conducted on twenty men living in high-altitude.
• The study showed that the twenty men had lost weight after a week of high-altitude living in a research station.

The men, middle-aged residents of low-altitude areas, had been taken to a research station at 2,650 meters (8,694 feet) above sea level.

• The twenty men were middle-aged.
• All twenty men previously resided in low-altitude areas.
• They had been taken to a research station, which is 2,650m above sea level.

They had unrestricted access to food and were forbidden vigorous exercise, yet they lost an average of 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) during their one-week stay.


• They had free access to food.
• They were forbidden vigorous exercise, which could result in weight loss.
• The twenty men lost an average of 1.5 kgs during a 1-week stay.

Clearly, the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss, since


• The weight loss could have been caused by the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes or hypobaric hypoxia, which means reduced regulation and functions of cells due to low oxygen.

Conclusion: The lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss.

Pre-thinking

Strengthen Framework

What information will help us believe more in the conclusion of the argument?

Conclusion: The lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss.

Given that:
(i) The twenty men were middle-aged and residents of low altitude areas.
(ii) The research station where the twenty spent a week was on a high altitude area 2650 m above sea level.
(iii) They had free access to food but where restricted vigorous exercise.

Thought Process

Twenty middle-aged men lived at a high-altitude research station for one week. They had unrestricted access to food but did no vigorous exercise. By the end of their stay, they had lost an average of 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) of weight.

Strengthener

A statement that indicates that although they had unrestricted access to food, low levels of oxygen was responsible for less consumption of food, thus, resulting in a weight loss without vigorous exercise.
Such a statement would help support the claim that lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes caused the weight loss.

Answer Choice Analysis

A. a decrease in oxygen intake has been shown to depress appetite CORRECT
• This information will definitely help support the hypothesis that lower levels of oxygen were responsible for weight loss. Since the men lived in low altitude areas, their intake of oxygen lowered in high-altitude areas, which reduced their appetite. Thus, this is the correct choice.

B. the men all participated in the same kinds of exercise during their stay INCORRECT
• Since vigorous exercise was restricted, we cannot say for certain that mild exercises resulted in weight loss. Thus, this is an incorrect choice.

C. the foods available to the men had fewer calories than the foods they usually ate INCORRECT
• This does not support the explanatory hypothesis concerning the role of oxygen reduction in weight loss. Thus, this is an incorrect choice.

D. exercise at higher altitudes is more difficult than exercise at lower altitudes is INCORRECT
• This statement, even if it is true, has no impact on the conclusion. Thus, this is an incorrect choice.

E. several weeks after returning home, the men still weighed less than they had before the study INCORRECT
• This statement does not tell us why the men lost weight during their 1-week stay at the high altitude research station. In fact, this statement casts doubt on the hypothesis that lower levels of oxygen were responsible for weight loss. Thus, this is an incorrect choice.

Cheers!

According to a study, after a week of high-altitude living, twenty men had slimmed down. The men, middle-aged residents of low-altitude areas, had been taken to a research station at 2,650 meters (8,694 feet) above sea level. They had unrestricted access to food and were forbidden vigorous exercise, yet they lost an average of 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) during their one-week stay. Clearly, the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss, since __________.

Conclusion : The lower availability of oxygen at higher altitude can be said to have caused the weight loss.
Premise ..
1. The people undergo in the study were having unrestricted access to food and were forbidden vigorous exercise
2. Yet they lost on an average of 1.5 kilogram .

let's analyse..
In what scenario the availability of oxygen cannot be said to have cause the weight loss.
given
1. The people undergo in the study were having unrestricted access to food and were forbidden vigorous exercise
2. Yet they lost on an average of 1.5 kilogram .

What if lower availability of oxygen does not have any relation with respect to the weight loss..
In that case our belief of lower availability of oxygen lead to weight loss will be weeken .
so our assumption is
1. Lower availability of oxygen does help in some way for the weight loss .

POE

Which of the following would, if true, most logically complete the argument?

A. a decrease in oxygen intake has been shown to depress appetite
1. If this is the case then and it will increase or belief that lower availability of oxygen will lead to decrease in appetite and can be an explanation for lower consumption of calories and then a reason for weight loss.. Correct
B. the men all participated in the same kinds of exercise during their stay

1. This choice does not impact or conclusion.. Hence incorrect

C. the foods available to the men had fewer calories than the foods they usually ate

1. Argument says that people were having unrestricted access to food sources, hence this choice is not relevant to the conclusion.. Hence incorrect

D. exercise at higher altitudes is more difficult than exercise at lower altitudes is

1. The argument says that people were forbidden of any vigorous exercise at higher altitude.. So whether exercise is more difficult or not is out of scope of conclusion.. Hence incorrect


E. several weeks after returning home, the men still weighed less than they had before the study

1. Out of scope of conclusion.. Hence incorrect

A is the best choice and that is our answer.

Which of the following would, if true, most logically complete the argument?

A. a decrease in oxygen intake has been shown to depress appetite - alright, this matches with our first line of reasoning. The diet does have a relation with the availability of oxygen. This looks good!

B. the men all participated in the same kinds of exercise during their stay - but they still had unrestricted excess to food as well. Also the premise states that all men were forbidden vigorous exercise. Still we don't have a convincing reason to say that availability of oxygen is the reason for the weight loss - Reject

C. the foods available to the men had fewer calories than the foods they usually ate - the fewer calories could have been compensated by eating more food(remember unrestricted access?). Again, no reason to say that availability of oxygen is the reason for the weight loss - Reject

D. exercise at higher altitudes is more difficult than exercise at lower altitudes is - Brings up irrelevant point - Reject

E. several weeks after returning home, the men still weighed less than they had before the study - it describes a situation after returning home. What about when the men were at the high altitudes? Why does the author say that the reason men lost weight was due to less availability of oxygen?no answer - Reject

Posted from my mobile device

Conclusion: the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss

Which of the following would, if true, most logically complete the argument?

A. a decrease in oxygen intake has been shown to depress appetite
This could be a potential premise that bridges the gap between availability of oxygen and weight loss.

B. the men all participated in the same kinds of exercise during their stay
I thought this removed a potential 3rd factor, thus supporting/strengthening the argument. It wasn’t different kinds of exercise that led to their losing weight; it was the lower availability of oxygen. But is this incorrect strictly because it doesn’t link the lower availability of oxygen to the weight loss?
MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja AjiteshArun egmat Is this line of reasoning faulty for answer choice B? I'm a little confused over this answer choice..

C. the foods available to the men had fewer calories than the foods they usually ate
This adds in another factor. It’s not the lower availability of oxygen, but it could be the foods that had fewer calories that led to their losing weight.

D. exercise at higher altitudes is more difficult than exercise at lower altitudes is
Again, another factor. Not oxygen but exercise.

E. several weeks after returning home, the men still weighed less than they had before the study
This makes it even more bizarre. If it was the lower availability of oxygen that led to their losing weight, wouldn’t it make sense that they would gain the weight back once they’re in an environment with presumably a normal level of oxygen? So why would they still weigh less than they had before the study?

Hi samgyupsal,

Option B is ~ "they all participated in the same kinds of {thing that is capable of causing weight loss}", but because kinds ("kinds" ~ "types"?) is a little vague, B doesn't give us much more than that. I would have liked to see something about the amount or intensity of exercise instead. For example, if option B were "they broke the rules and participated in vigorous exercise", it would have weakened the conclusion. Similarly, an option that gave us reason to believe that the "forbidden vigorous exercise" condition held would have strengthened the conclusion.

But because kinds doesn't do that, I don't see B as a very good option. Option A, on the other hand, directly links lower availability of oxygen to weight loss.

The presence of "since" prior to the incomplete portion of the passage signals that we need to explain WHY the lower availability of O2 at high altitudes caused weight loss in these men.

According to a study, after a week of high-altitude living, twenty men had slimmed down. The men, middle-aged residents of low-altitude areas, had been taken to a research station at 2,650 meters (8,694 feet) above sea level. They had unrestricted access to food and were forbidden vigorous exercise, yet they lost an average of 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) during their one-week stay. Clearly, the lower availability of oxygen at higher altitudes, or hypobaric hypoxia, can be said to have caused the weight loss, since __________.

Which of the following would, if true, most logically complete the argument?

A. a decrease in oxygen intake has been shown to depress appetite
Correct. Irrespective of the fact that there was unrestricted access to food...it won't matter if the men simply don't eat it (because of loss of appetite). This explains their weight loss.

B. the men all participated in the same kinds of exercise during their stay X

Cannot contradict the passage which says men were forbidden exercise. If you want to be microscopic and suggest that there is a modifier in front of exercise, i.e. the men were forbidden from vigorous exercise, then OK. But the passage is specifically focused on why living at higher altitudes in and of itself caused the weight loss (Wondering if others can chime in on this logic).

C. the foods available to the men had fewer calories than the foods they usually ate X
Again we have to tie it back to the altitude.

D. exercise at higher altitudes is more difficult than exercise at lower altitudes is X
This is a needless comparison.

E. several weeks after returning home, the men still weighed less than they had before the study X
Extra supplemental information that does not complete the logic.

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
As we need to complete the passage and from the contextual clue, we need to support the conclusion. I selected B thinking that it eliminates other cause for weight loss hence strengthening the conclusion, I agree that we are provided that vigorous exercises were forbidden, but option B says they participated in same kinds (maybe not vigorous, but mild). While option A tells us, that lower oxygen is responsible for loss of apetite and it is due to loss of apetite that weight loss was acheived. A tell us how low level of oxygen helps in weight loss, but does it strengthens also.

Appreciate your time and response!

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.