Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 17 Jul 2019, 02:21

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

Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1224
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Aug 2015, 10:02
1
5
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

80% (01:54) correct 20% (02:03) wrong based on 369 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee Camp might be at risk for beriberi, a severe deficiency of Thiamine, a B vitamin. Thiamine is found in high concentrations in cereal grains, and many of the residents have grain free diets because of allergies. Doctors and nutritionists assigned to investigate the situation have disagreed, noting that the residents grow sustenance amounts of potatoes, kale, and cauliflower on the surrounding farm lands, and these foods provide substantial sources of Thiamine as well. Because the residents of this refugee camp do not have any allergies to any of these latter foods, and crops have been good because of favorable weather conditions, their risk of beriberi is much lower than originally thought.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
B) The first is evidence that seems to contradict the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C) The first is the conclusion of the argument; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
D) The first is the conclusion of the argument; the second calls is an alternate interpretation of this conclusion.
E) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the argument.

_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4487
Re: Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Aug 2015, 11:10
5
Harley1980 wrote:
Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee Camp might be at risk for beriberi, a severe deficiency of Thiamine, a B vitamin. Thiamine is found in high concentrations in cereal grains, and many of the residents have grain free diets because of allergies. Doctors and nutritionists assigned to investigate the situation have disagreed, noting that the residents grow sustenance amounts of potatoes, kale, and cauliflower on the surrounding farm lands, and these foods provide substantial sources of Thiamine as well. Because the residents of this refugee camp do not have any allergies to any of these latter foods, and crops have been good because of favorable weather conditions, their risk of beriberi is much lower than originally thought.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
B) The first is evidence that seems to contradict the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C) The first is the conclusion of the argument; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
D) The first is the conclusion of the argument; the second calls is an alternate interpretation of this conclusion.
E) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the argument.

Dear Harley1980,
I'm happy to help! Another one that I wrote!

OK, let's step back and look at the prompt as a whole, and consider the nameless narrator who is telling us this whole story. What is that nameless narrator's conclusion? Well, he tells us out the aid workers who had one conclusion, but then tells us about the doctors and nutritionists who are presented as much more well informed, and this folks reach a different conclusion. Clearly, the conclusion of the nameless narrator is that the doctors and the nutritionists are perfectly correct, and the aid workers were mistaken because they were not aware of the full spectrum of the evidence. The end of the paragraph, the conclusion of the doctors & nutritionists, is also the conclusion of the nameless narrator. This, the second bold statement, is THE conclusion of the prompt argument.

Always remember that there is a nameless narrator telling us the prompt argument. This person is making the argument, and the conclusion of the argument is that narrator's conclusion, which may well coincide with the conclusion of some of the characters in the prompt.

OK, right away, that knocks out (C) & (D) & (E), all of which say that the second bold statement is something other than the argument.

This leaves (A) & (B). The first bold statement does NOT support the conclusion: it completely contradicts the conclusion. That means (A) is out, leaving only the OA, (B). The first bold statement is perfectly factual--- it is evidence. It seems, taken by itself, to suggest a high risk of beriberi, and this is what the air workers conclude. Taken as part of the whole though, the evidence in the first bold statement does not really present an impediment to the conclusion.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
General Discussion
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1224
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Aug 2015, 13:16
mikemcgarry wrote:
Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thank you Mike. Your questions and explanations as usual are perfect
_________________
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2017
Posts: 56
Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 02:09
Hi Mike but isnt i providing evidence also as they are not having cereal grains ? So isnt it A

@mikemgarry
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4487
Re: Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 10:46
Asac123 wrote:
Hi Mike but isnt i providing evidence also as they are not having cereal grains ? So isnt it A

@mikemgarry

Dear Asac123,

I'm happy to respond.

The conclusion is that the risk of beri-beri is low. That's the second BF.

One thing that would prevent beri-beri would be grains high in thiamin. But the first BF tells us these people can't eat grains! That would support the idea that the risk of beri-beri is high. This contradicts the conclusion (this was the naive conclusion of the aid workers.)

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
Re: Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee  [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Aug 2018, 07:34

Official Explanation

The first sentence is at least a tentative conclusion --- any prediction cannot be evidence: it has to be a conclusion. The second sentence is the evidence for this first position --- this first boldface part is the evidence #1. Then we get the doctor's view. These doctors don't dispute evidence #1, but they also point out evidence #2 --- thiamine from foods like potato & kale & cauliflower, which these refugee folks do eat. Finally, we get conclusion #2, the doctors conclusion, the second boldface part.

How do we say this? Evidence #1, the first boldface part, seemed to support conclusion #1, but as new evidence shows, conclusion #2, which says the opposite, is correct. The second is the conclusion of the argument.

(B) is the credited response. The second is definitely the conclusion of the argument. The first is evidence, and by itself, that evidence would seem to support conclusion #1 (the opposite of conclusion #2), so in that sense, it would seem to oppose conclusion #2.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Re: Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2018, 07:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by