It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 00:37

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 23

Location: United States
Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2013, 00:31
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

78% (01:34) correct 22% (01:18) wrong based on 248 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

VERITASPREPKARISHMA

I chose D because of the reasons you mentioned. This answer choice made me think that gum disease and cardiac problems are not causal
_________________

Struggling: make or break attempt

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 23

Manager
Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 107

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 1

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 20:37
E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant.
For weakening a causal relationship say A====>B we have to prove
1. B=====>A or
2. some evidence which states that A DOES not lead to B or
3. some other thing say C=====>B
E states Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease
which means Patients "with" history of heart disease are much "more" likely to have periodontal disease i.e, it falls in category 1 as stated above.It affirms causal relationship in reverse thus weakening the conclusion that A=====>B.
Had option E been "Patients with history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease," then it means B=/=/=/=>A
which in fact strengthens the argument.
based on this text book approach I chose E.
What is wrong with my explanation?

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 1

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7793

Kudos [?]: 18125 [0], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 20:52
E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant.
For weakening a causal relationship say A====>B we have to prove
1. B=====>A or
2. some evidence which states that A DOES not lead to B or
3. some other thing say C=====>B
E states Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease
which means Patients "with" history of heart disease are much "more" likely to have periodontal disease i.e, it falls in category 1 as stated above.It affirms causal relationship in reverse thus weakening the conclusion that A=====>B.
Had option E been "Patients with history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease," then it means B=/=/=/=>A
which in fact strengthens the argument.
based on this text book approach I chose E.
What is wrong with my explanation?

E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant.

Note that E does not give you a causal relationship. It just tells you that many people with heart diseases have gum problems i.e. it just tells you that the two problems appear together. It adds no new information. It doesn't say anything about heart disease being the cause of gum disease. Our premises in the argument are from the perspective of a gum disease patient (say, if we studied people with gum diseases). This option is from the perspective of heart disease patients (if instead we surveyed the heart disease patients). The conclusion drawn is the same in both - gum diseases and heart diseases are often found together. So actually, it adds no new info.

If it were to be a weakener it would need to say that Heart diseases cause gum problems, not just that they appear together.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18125 [0], given: 236

Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 88 [1], given: 45

Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2013, 04:44
1
KUDOS
mikemcgarry wrote:
agdimple333 wrote:
Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart disease occur in the same patients, many dentists believe that periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems, including Coronary Artery Disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim that periodontal disease is a cause of Coronary Artery disease?
A. Bacteria present in infected gums can become mobile and enter the bloodstream, causing arterial plaque to accumulate.
B. People who brush and floss their teeth regularly are also more likely to exercise and eat a healthy diet.
C. Infected gums are more prone to bleeding, which allows bacteria to escape the mouth and irritate arteries.
D. People who experience loss of teeth due to periodontal disease usually cut back on many foods that are harder to chew, such as lean meats and vegetables, and increase their consumption of processed foods like pudding and ice cream.
E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant.

Another strange question... Is it just me or do you guys also think these questions are not true representation of actual GMAT style questions..

fameatop wrote:
I am not able to understand why option B is correct & E is incorrect. Can you kindly throw some light on the same. Waiting eagerly for your detailed explanation.

So far as I can tell, this is a Knewton question, and the OA is (B). First, as to agdimple333's point, while this prompt is perhaps a little on the short side, I would say the logic of the question very much captures the kind of logic you will see on GMAT CR questions. This is, in essence, a very good question --- not least because it has a very clear and well-defined OA, and yet, many folks on this page have fallen for one of the trap answers, most notably, (E).

The big underlying idea of this question is ---- correlation does not imply causality. This blog
is primarily about regression and correlation, but it does touch on this issue.

Let's say
P = periodontal disease
Q = cardiovascular problems
The dentists' argument is, essentially, P & Q are correlated, so P cause Q. The dentists' argument is abysmally bad, a classic flawed argument pattern.

To strengthen such an argument, we would have to demonstrate there was some mechanism of connection ---- e.g. bacteria or viruses in the mouth that become blood-borne and infect the heart, something like that.

One of the best ways to weaken a correlation/causality argument is to show that both terms arise from something else. This is in essence what (B) does. (B) says: there are a category of people --- call them "health all over" people --- and these folks take care of themselves from head to foot --- they brush and floss, which prevents periodontal disease, and separately, they eat healthy and exercise, so they don't get heart disease. That implies there would be other people, the "don't take care of self" people, who don't brush, don't floss, don't eat health, don't exercise, don't laugh, don't sing, don't do much of anything to take care of themselves. These latter people would be prime candidates to get periodontal disease (from not brushing & flossing) as well as heart disease (from poor diet and no exercise), but the periodontal disease and the heart disease do not have relationship of causality with one another --- rather, they are both products of an overall unhealthy lifestyle. This decisively weakens the argument, which is all about the leap from correlation to causality.

By contrast, (E) simply provides more evidence for the correlation. We already know P & Q are correlated. That was the first sentence. That's the evidence in this argument. That's beyond doubt. The crux of the argument is this vast logical leap from correlation to causality. Choice (E) simply gives more evidence that P & Q are correlated. In a strange way, it is a kind of strengthener, insofar as it reinforces evidence. It doesn't address the issue of causality and it doesn't clearly weaken the argument.
Another way to weaken the argument "P causes Q" would be to show that, actually, Q causes P --- something along those lines would be a good weakener, but (E) doesn't clearly support this.

Does all this make sense?

Mike

Thanks Mike, this explanation was clear. But reading it gave me the impression that the question is not representative of what Official GMAT would look like. GMAT answers wouldn't require any sort of "over" inference, but answering B was necessary to infer something beyond, as you've pointed out:

"they eat healthy and exercise, so they don't get heart disease."

In other words, to choose answer B is necessary to assume that healthy habits and exercise prevent someone from getting the heart disease (real world true, but the question really implied that?). This is what refrained me from picking B.

Kudos [?]: 88 [1], given: 45

Intern
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 17

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2013, 05:08
agdimple333 wrote:
Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart disease occur in the same patients, many dentists believe that periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems, including Coronary Artery Disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim that periodontal disease is a cause of Coronary Artery disease?

A. Bacteria present in infected gums can become mobile and enter the bloodstream, causing arterial plaque to accumulate.
B. People who brush and floss their teeth regularly are also more likely to exercise and eat a healthy diet.
C. Infected gums are more prone to bleeding, which allows bacteria to escape the mouth and irritate arteries.
D. People who experience loss of teeth due to periodontal disease usually cut back on many foods that are harder to chew, such as lean meats and vegetables, and increase their consumption of processed foods like pudding and ice cream.
E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant.

Another strange question... Is it just me or do you guys also think these questions are not true representation of actual GMAT style questions..

I've seen a lot of different OAs on this one but the answer has to be D.

Argument core: gum problems and cardiovascular problems are correlated THEREFORE gum problems causes cardiovascular problems.

Assumptions: gum problems are THE ONLY possible cause of CV problems, and gum problems always produce CV problems.

Task: To weaken this argument; let's undermine these assumptions.

A. Bacteria present in infected gums can become mobile and enter the bloodstream, causing arterial plaque to accumulate.

gum problems can cause heart problems --> strengthener --> wrong

B. People who brush and floss their teeth regularly are also more likely to exercise and eat a healthy diet.

If you have...
Cause but no effect --> drives wedge between premise/conclusion
The effect but no cause --> drives wedge between premise/conclusion
No cause and no effect --> ...hmmm, how does this matter? --> wrong

C. Infected gums are more prone to bleeding, which allows bacteria to escape the mouth and irritate arteries.

GP cause CVPs --> strengthener --> wrong

D. People who experience loss of teeth due to periodontal disease usually cut back on many foods that are harder to chew, such as lean meats and vegetables, and increase their consumption of processed foods like pudding and ice cream.

This must be the correct answer, whether its the "OA" or not. This choice states that people with serious gum problems radically CHANGE THEIR DIET from from healthy foods to junk. In other words, this directly undermines the assumption that gum problems are the ONLY cause of CV problems, ie, that they are not caused by radical changes in diet, a change which may or may not have been precipitated by GPs ("usually"). --> correct

E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant.

--> if this is not an irrelevant comparison (issue with "no HISTORY"), then we have another case of "no cause and no effect"; people without CV problems are much less likely to have GPs (a zero percent chance works just fine) --> unclear impact --> wrong.

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 17

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4554

Kudos [?]: 8963 [0], given: 111

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2013, 11:08
Reinfrank2011 wrote:
I've seen a lot of different OAs on this one but the answer has to be D.

Everywhere I have looked, I have seen users claim all kinds of things are answers, but I have only seen experts and OA posting indicate (B) is the answer.

Reinfrank2011 wrote:
B. People who brush and floss their teeth regularly are also more likely to exercise and eat a healthy diet.

If you have...
Cause but no effect --> drives wedge between premise/conclusion
The effect but no cause --> drives wedge between premise/conclusion
No cause and no effect --> ...hmmm, how does this matter? --> wrong

D. People who experience loss of teeth due to periodontal disease usually cut back on many foods that are harder to chew, such as lean meats and vegetables, and increase their consumption of processed foods like pudding and ice cream.

This must be the correct answer, whether its the "OA" or not. This choice states that people with serious gum problems radically CHANGE THEIR DIET from from healthy foods to junk. In other words, this directly undermines the assumption that gum problems are the ONLY cause of CV problems, ie, that they are not caused by radical changes in diet, a change which may or may not have been precipitated by GPs ("usually"). --> correct

The conclusion of the prompt argument posits a causal relationship ----- "periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems" and we are asked to weaken the argument. Demonstrating "no cause" is precisely what we have to do, in order to weaken this argument. As I explained above, the logic of the argument is the classic correlation-implies-causality mistake. If P & Q are correlated, a very effective weakener for this the causation argument is to show that something else accounts for the correlation of P & Q. This is precisely what (B) does. It tells us (brushing & flossing regularly) are correlated with (exercise & healthy diet) --- one could say, they are both "caused" by a person's overall health-awareness & quality of self-care. Brushing & flossing cause the absences of periodontal disease: that's common knowledge. Regular exercise and a health diet cause the low frequency of heart disease: that's also common knowledge. Therefore, lack of brushing and flossing would lead to a higher frequency of periodontal disease, and lack of exercise & a poor diet would lead to a higher frequency of heart disease. That's precisely how these two could be correlated without having a causal relationship.

One could say that (D) strengthens the argument --- periodontal disease "cause" people to stop eating lean meat & veggies (both good for the heart), and "cause" people to eat unhealthy foods, which, in turn, cause heart disease. Thus, periodontal disease would stand at the head of a causal change that leads to heart disease. This is consistent with the causal claim of the argument, so it is not a weakener.

For some reason, you believe that an assumption or conclusion of the argument is that periodontal disease is the ONLY cause of heart disease. This is 100% not supported by anything in the argument. That would be a 10-times stronger argument than that one presented here. There's a HUGE difference between saying "P causes Q" (which leaves open the possibility that many other factors could also cause Q) and "P is the only cause of Q" (which creates a unique link between P & Q). Nothing in the prompt justifies the "ONLY" reading, and in fact, if you think about it, it's patently illogical for anyone to make that claim, because it's common knowledge that all sorts of things in everyday life (lack of exercise, high-fat diets, smoking, etc) cause heart disease. Be very careful of making arguments & assumptions more rigorous or more exclusive than the text justifies.

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)

Kudos [?]: 8963 [0], given: 111

Intern
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 17

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2013, 14:06
mikemcgarry wrote:
[

For some reason, you believe that an assumption or conclusion of the argument is that periodontal disease is the ONLY cause of heart disease. This is 100% not supported by anything in the argument. That would be a 10-times stronger argument than that one presented here. There's a HUGE difference between saying "P causes Q" (which leaves open the possibility that many other factors could also cause Q) and "P is the only cause of Q" (which creates a unique link between P & Q). Nothing in the prompt justifies the "ONLY" reading, and in fact, if you think about it, it's patently illogical for anyone to make that claim, because it's common knowledge that all sorts of things in everyday life (lack of exercise, high-fat diets, smoking, etc) cause heart disease. Be very careful of making arguments & assumptions more rigorous or more exclusive than the text justifies.

Here is why I believe that an assumption of the argument is periodontal disease is the only cause of cardiovascular problems:

The argument is:
Premise = these two things appear to happen together
Conclusion = one of these things causes the other / one of these things is "a cause" of the other

The only way the author can conclude that a casual relationship is at work is by having considered every other possible explanation and ruled every single one of them out--otherwise, how could the author possibly conclude that causality is at work? Without that assumption, that same evidence could just as well be used to support a very different conclusion, namely that those two things are both caused by some third factor, or perhaps that they are just correlated. The reason my assumption is so extreme is that making a casual claim from one data point about the frequency with which two things to happen together is incredibly extreme--it's also why casual conclusions on the gmat/lsat, or in everyday life, are all inherently flawed. I am not the one being extreme here--the author is.

As for the "the cause" versus "a cause"; when the author concludes that one of them is "a cause", that author is STILL assuming that it's the only cause--if there were other potential causes, the author could not CONCLUDE that one causes the other (why and how could he conclude that, in this case, the cause is what he claims it to be, not the other potential causes that he acknowledges exist?). Therefore the author MUST be assuming it's the only cause, whether he means to or not. That assumption is the only way for the argument to be valid. However much the author may want to hedge his claim by including that it is "a" cause, or for however frequent this type of argument occurs in everyday life, the fact of the matter is that author reached that conclusion from evidence that merely shows that the two things seem to happen together. There is a massive gap between the premise and the conclusion, and the only way that can be bridged is by an equally massive assumption.

mikemcgarry wrote:
[
The conclusion of the prompt argument posits a causal relationship ----- "periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems" and we are asked to weaken the argument. Demonstrating "no cause" is precisely what we have to do, in order to weaken this argument. As I explained above, the logic of the argument is the classic correlation-implies-causality mistake. If P & Q are correlated, a very effective weakener for this the causation argument is to show that something else accounts for the correlation of P & Q. This is precisely what (B) does. It tells us (brushing & flossing regularly) are correlated with (exercise & healthy diet) --- one could say, they are both "caused" by a person's overall health-awareness & quality of self-care. Brushing & flossing cause the absences of periodontal disease: that's common knowledge. Regular exercise and a health diet cause the low frequency of heart disease: that's also common knowledge. Therefore, lack of brushing and flossing would lead to a higher frequency of periodontal disease, and lack of exercise & a poor diet would lead to a higher frequency of heart disease. That's precisely how these two could be correlated without having a causal relationship.

How does the logic used to justify the answer choice NOT commit the same error of judgement that the author or the original argument did, that correlation implies causation? All this says it that people do not have gum problems are more likely to not have cardiovascular problems. Even if you take it imply correlation, how does proof of correlation deny causation? EX: "Not being shot in the head is correlated with not dying, THEREFORE that fact weakens the argument that being shot in the head causes death?". Please explain.

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 17

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4554

Kudos [?]: 8963 [0], given: 111

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2013, 14:54
Reinfrank2011 wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
[

For some reason, you believe that an assumption or conclusion of the argument is that periodontal disease is the ONLY cause of heart disease. This is 100% not supported by anything in the argument. That would be a 10-times stronger argument than that one presented here. There's a HUGE difference between saying "P causes Q" (which leaves open the possibility that many other factors could also cause Q) and "P is the only cause of Q" (which creates a unique link between P & Q). Nothing in the prompt justifies the "ONLY" reading, and in fact, if you think about it, it's patently illogical for anyone to make that claim, because it's common knowledge that all sorts of things in everyday life (lack of exercise, high-fat diets, smoking, etc) cause heart disease. Be very careful of making arguments & assumptions more rigorous or more exclusive than the text justifies.

Here is why I believe that an assumption of the argument is periodontal disease is the only cause of cardiovascular problems:

The argument is:
Premise = these two things appear to happen together
Conclusion = one of these things causes the other / one of these things is "a cause" of the other

The only way the author can conclude that a casual relationship is at work is by having considered every other possible explanation and ruled every single one of them out--otherwise, how could the author possibly conclude that causality is at work? Without that assumption, that same evidence could just as well be used to support a very different conclusion, namely that those two things are both caused by some third factor, or perhaps that they are just correlated. The reason my assumption is so extreme is that making a casual claim from one data point about the frequency with which two things to happen together is incredibly extreme--it's also why casual conclusions on the gmat/lsat, or in everyday life, are all inherently flawed. I am not the one being extreme here--the author is.

As for the "the cause" versus "a cause"; when the author concludes that one of them is "a cause", that author is STILL assuming that it's the only cause--if there were other potential causes, the author could not CONCLUDE that one causes the other (why and how could he conclude that, in this case, the cause is what he claims it to be, not the other potential causes that he acknowledges exist?). Therefore the author MUST be assuming it's the only cause, whether he means to or not. That assumption is the only way for the argument to be valid. However much the author may want to hedge his claim by including that it is "a" cause, or for however frequent this type of argument occurs in everyday life, the fact of the matter is that author reached that conclusion from evidence that merely shows that the two things seem to happen together. There is a massive gap between the premise and the conclusion, and the only way that can be bridged is by an equally massive assumption.

OK, two different issues. I will respond in two different posts, just to keep things organized.
It's perfectly true that the prompt argument is a lousy argument, with an untenable jump from premise to conclusion.

We have the scenario:
Premise: P and Q appear together (i.e. P is correlated with Q)
Conclusion: P causes Q
The classic "correlation does not imply causality" error. What's the assumption here?

You claim the assumption is, and must be "P is the only cause of Q". As you may know, one of the classic tests for the assumption of an argument is the Negation Test --- if you can negate a statement and still imagine the argument surviving, then what you have is not a principal assumption of the argument. If, when you negate the statement, this creates a devastating objection from which the argument cannot recover ---- then, that's an assumption. This is described in more depth in:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/assumption ... -the-gmat/
I will apply the Negation Test to your assumption: "P is not the only cause of Q." Well, in the scenario in which (P = smoking, Q = cancer) or (P = lack of exercise, Q = susceptibility to heart disease), then it would be perfectly possible for the negation of your assumption to be true and the argument would still work. That tells us, in general, this is not a universal assumption for this scenario.

You seem to be trying to establish an airtight path from the premise to the conclusion, but this is inherently a faulty argument. The question is simply saying --- we have a faulty argument, so how do we knock it down? That's it. That's all the question is asking. By contrast, what you are doing is --- first, let's take this faulty argument, and make it as solid as concrete, reinforce it with stainless steel girders, and then we'll take the most sophisticated industrial equipment and demolish it. That's a wonderful exercise in its own right, but that is most certainly not the task at hand. You are way over-analyzing this scenario, and thereby overlooking the very simple task the question asks. When one is very gifted with logical analysis, as you clearly are, it's very simple to overthink and completely miss the very straightforward tasks of GMAT CR.

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)

Kudos [?]: 8963 [0], given: 111

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4554

Kudos [?]: 8963 [0], given: 111

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2013, 15:10
Reinfrank2011 wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
[
The conclusion of the prompt argument posits a causal relationship ----- "periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems" and we are asked to weaken the argument. Demonstrating "no cause" is precisely what we have to do, in order to weaken this argument. As I explained above, the logic of the argument is the classic correlation-implies-causality mistake. If P & Q are correlated, a very effective weakener for this the causation argument is to show that something else accounts for the correlation of P & Q. This is precisely what (B) does. It tells us (brushing & flossing regularly) are correlated with (exercise & healthy diet) --- one could say, they are both "caused" by a person's overall health-awareness & quality of self-care. Brushing & flossing cause the absences of periodontal disease: that's common knowledge. Regular exercise and a health diet cause the low frequency of heart disease: that's also common knowledge. Therefore, lack of brushing and flossing would lead to a higher frequency of periodontal disease, and lack of exercise & a poor diet would lead to a higher frequency of heart disease. That's precisely how these two could be correlated without having a causal relationship.

How does the logic used to justify the answer choice NOT commit the same error of judgement that the author or the original argument did, that correlation implies causation? All this says it that people do not have gum problems are more likely to not have cardiovascular problems. Even if you take it imply correlation, how does proof of correlation deny causation? EX: "Not being shot in the head is correlated with not dying, THEREFORE that fact weakens the argument that being shot in the head causes death?". Please explain.

Great question.
Again, we have
Premise: P is found with Q (P is correlated with Q)
Conclusion: P causes Q
Of course, the error is the unsubstantiated jump from correlation to causality.

The OA, (B), essentially says "the cause of P is correlated with the cause of Q"
First of all, we don't know why this would be true, but we don't have to --- we take premises and statements in answer choices as fait accompli, beyond question. So, suppose (B) is true, for whatever reason. What would be the logical consequences of (B)?
Notice, also: we don't repeat the mistake at a higher level --- there is absolutely no reason to move from statement (B) to the totally illogical statement "the cause of P causes the cause of Q". That would be disastrously illogical, but that's an absolutely unnecessary step, irrelevant to the argument involved with this choice.
Here's the logic --- if the cause of P is correlated with the cause of Q, this means, where one is found, we will tend to find the other. In the many situations in which the two are found together, then the cause of P will cause P, and, separately, the cause of Q will cause Q, and therefore P and Q will be found together. In other situations, in which both are absent, then the absence of this cause of P will make P less likely to occur, and the absence of this cause of Q will make Q less likely to occur, and thus we will have an elevated likelihood of scenarios in which the absence of P and the absence of Q concur. Thus, on both counts, this statement would create conditions in which P & Q are correlated, and this would be an alternate explanation ---- i.e. how P & Q could be correlated even though P has absolutely nothing to do with causing Q.

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)

Kudos [?]: 8963 [0], given: 111

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10199

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2015, 05:23
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.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1903

Kudos [?]: 550 [0], given: 23

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2015, 05:15
Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart disease occur in the same patients, many dentists believe that periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems, including Coronary Artery Disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim that periodontal disease is a cause of Coronary Artery disease?

A. Bacteria present in infected gums can become mobile and enter the bloodstream, causing arterial plaque to accumulate. could strengthen
B. People who brush and floss their teeth regularly are also more likely to exercise and eat a healthy diet.
Weakens because it points away from the causal relationship established in the question stem.
C. Infected gums are more prone to bleeding, which allows bacteria to escape the mouth and irritate arteries.
could strengthen, but doesn't really relate to CAD specifically
D. People who experience loss of teeth due to periodontal disease usually cut back on many foods that are harder to chew, such as lean meats and vegetables, and increase their consumption of processed foods like pudding and ice cream.
could strengthen
E. Patients with no history of heart disease are much less likely to have periodontal disease than patients who have had a cardiac transplant. could strengthen, but starting with people with no history of heart disease are less likely to have periodontal disease isn't the best way to show that periodontal disease leads to heart disease

Kudos [?]: 550 [0], given: 23

Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2014
Posts: 106

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 8

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2015, 09:50
B) IMO

Can someone add the OA. Thanks !
_________________

Consider Kudos for my post, if it is helpful.
TIA

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 8

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10199

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2017, 08:04
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.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 29 May 2017
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 22

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2017, 13:34
B looks good.

This indicates that there is no relation between coronary artery disease and gum disease.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 22

Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2017
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 33

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 05:53
Option D comes up with lack of proper diet as the reason for the heart problems and not the dental issues. So it weakens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 33

Re: Citing the frequency with which gum disease and heart   [#permalink] 14 Aug 2017, 05:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by