Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
22 Feb 2024, 01:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Yes. Option (A) is better than other four, but the reasoning is not quite convincing.
Intentionally or unintentionally, test makers deleted some logic links between premises and conclusion when creating this question from a long science paper.
It is mainly saying:
Is this reasoning invalid? No. It could be logical.
Is this reasoning perfect? Also No. We're not given necessary information to connect salt level and the illness.
Intentionally or unintentionally, test makers deleted some logic links between premises and conclusion when creating this question from a long science paper.
It is mainly saying:
- Because we found adequate salt intake does not lead to high blood pressure, we can hypothesize that in ingesting high salt diet, people who get used to lower salt intake for long time have a higher chance to develop high blood pressure.
Is this reasoning invalid? No. It could be logical.
Is this reasoning perfect? Also No. We're not given necessary information to connect salt level and the illness.
03 Dec 2024, 09:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Why Option A Supports the Hypothesis:
A. The blood pressures of those descended from peoples situated throughout their history in Senegal and Gambia, where salt was always available, are low.
This evidence is significant for the following reasons:
Variation in Ancestral Salt Availability:
Senegal and Gambia are regions where salt was historically abundant.
Populations from these areas would not have undergone genetic adaptations to conserve salt, as salt scarcity was not an environmental pressure.
Low Blood Pressure Despite Westernization:
If these populations, despite being westernized and exposed to high-salt diets, have low blood pressure, it suggests that the absence of genetic adaptation to salt scarcity protects them from the interaction that causes high blood pressure.
Directly Confirms the Hypothesis:
The finding supports the idea that ancestral salt availability plays a role in modern predispositions to high blood pressure. It shows that populations with abundant salt historically are less affected by high-salt diets today, directly confirming the researchers' genetic-environment interaction hypothesis.
A. The blood pressures of those descended from peoples situated throughout their history in Senegal and Gambia, where salt was always available, are low.
This evidence is significant for the following reasons:
Variation in Ancestral Salt Availability:
Senegal and Gambia are regions where salt was historically abundant.
Populations from these areas would not have undergone genetic adaptations to conserve salt, as salt scarcity was not an environmental pressure.
Low Blood Pressure Despite Westernization:
If these populations, despite being westernized and exposed to high-salt diets, have low blood pressure, it suggests that the absence of genetic adaptation to salt scarcity protects them from the interaction that causes high blood pressure.
Directly Confirms the Hypothesis:
The finding supports the idea that ancestral salt availability plays a role in modern predispositions to high blood pressure. It shows that populations with abundant salt historically are less affected by high-salt diets today, directly confirming the researchers' genetic-environment interaction hypothesis.
08 Nov 2025, 04:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi MartyMurray, GMATNinja, WhitEngagePrep
Could someone help to understand this solution better?
Conclusion: High BP among westernised African people (black Americans and westernised black Africans) has been caused by the interaction of their genes (conditioned to salt scarcity) and high salt western diets. Essentially, we are asked to strengthen: High WA BP = Low salt genes x High Salt Diet
Anything that removes the cause, such that the effect is removed as well, would strengthen the cause-and-effect relationship. For example, if there are some westernised/non-westernised Africans that do not eat high salt diets and have low BPs, it should ideally strengthen this.
I think choice D) does exactly that - it shows that some African people who are far away from salt do not have high BPs.
Whereas choica A) tells us that when the ancestors of some African people did not have salt scarcity, they did not have high BPs. Even though this, if anything, tries to challenge a premise: that is, some African people who did have salt, had low BPs, I think this weakens the argument, instead of strengthening it.
Could someone help to understand this solution better?
Conclusion: High BP among westernised African people (black Americans and westernised black Africans) has been caused by the interaction of their genes (conditioned to salt scarcity) and high salt western diets. Essentially, we are asked to strengthen: High WA BP = Low salt genes x High Salt Diet
Anything that removes the cause, such that the effect is removed as well, would strengthen the cause-and-effect relationship. For example, if there are some westernised/non-westernised Africans that do not eat high salt diets and have low BPs, it should ideally strengthen this.
I think choice D) does exactly that - it shows that some African people who are far away from salt do not have high BPs.
Whereas choica A) tells us that when the ancestors of some African people did not have salt scarcity, they did not have high BPs. Even though this, if anything, tries to challenge a premise: that is, some African people who did have salt, had low BPs, I think this weakens the argument, instead of strengthening it.
