Quantum2022 wrote:
This was so tricky but it made total sense when I saw the right answer.
So, the hypothesis states that the reason BP is high is because of a combo of western high salt diets and genes that had to adapt from a place that typically had a SCARCITY of salt.
A strengthens the hypothesis because it's saying that Senegal and Gambia already had PLENTY of salt so descendents would have low BP because they're genes didn't have to get used to high salt diets.
Posted from my mobile device
CEdward wrote:
Quantum2022 wrote:
This was so tricky but it made total sense when I saw the right answer.
So, the hypothesis states that the reason BP is high is because of a combo of western high salt diets and genes that had to adapt from a place that typically had a SCARCITY of salt.
A strengthens the hypothesis because it's saying that Senegal and Gambia already had PLENTY of salt so descendents would have low BP because they're genes didn't have to get used to high salt diets.
Posted from my mobile device
I still get thrown off. The last bit of the passage says that their genes were adapted to an environmental scarcity, yet A says they descended from those who lived in areas with high salt...
In my first reading , I could not relate some information with each other and end up in shortlisting A and D.
After using equation, I was sure of choosing A over D
Here is how I did it:
What is given: Western high salt diets -- - > cause high blood pressure for people who lived in low scarcity of salt/low salt genes
Summary :
if low salt diet genes ---> Increase salt in diet ---- > causes high blood pressure
X ( history of low salt) --- > Y (increase salt diet) ---- > Z ( high blood pressure)
What I need to strengthen?
X is responsible for Z
Quote:
(A) The blood pressures of those descended from peoples situated throughout their history in Senegal and Gambia, where salt was always available, are low.
What A says:
If No X but IF Y happens Z doesn’t happen ( If history didn't have low salt then in case Y happens Z doesn't happen)
It gives me an indication that X could be the reasons for Z
Quote:
(D) Blood pressures are low among the Yoruba, who, throughout their history, have been situated far inland from sources of sea salt and far south of Saharan salt mines.
What D says:
If X low - -> Increase Y --> Z happens
With presence of X and in case Y happens, Z can happen
But this I already know. Here I am not sure whether Z can still happen if X is removed? Can there other reason for Z to happen. I don't have new information here. so this option become irrelevant.
But in presence of A( How to make a claim strengthen) If no cause then no result --( adds value to claim) . As if cause was the reason for result
If cause then result ( D: given in argument)
A wins over D for this question.I hope it helps.