Columnist: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat that has

Let's consider what (B) is telling us, and what it's not telling us.

If the "vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat," that tells us one source of these essential vitamins. However, that doesn't mean these foods are the only source of the vitamins. In fact, the essential vitamins could still be contained in many other, fat-free foods.

So even if people were entirely avoiding foods that contain fat, they could still be getting the "essential vitamins" from other sources, and the artificial fat would still be a drawback (since it would prevent the essential vitamins from being used by the body). So, (B) is incorrect.

For more on why (A) is correct and (B) is wrong, check out this post.

I hope that helps!

In my gmatprep mock, I got the same question but option B was a bit different.

B) Whether any of the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are destroyed by prolonged cooking

What is this option exactly trying to say?
So, if any of the vitamins are destroyed by prolonged cooking, then there still could be SOME vitamins that stayed and thus, those could be absorbed by the artificial fat. Thus, yes we should avoid it

And if none of the vitamins get destroyed, then the artificial fat would absorb all of it. So, again yes we should avoid it.

Am I right in my way of focusing on the word 'any'? Also, should we focus on the word prolonged cooking. DO we have to think about ways of normal cooking as well, or we should only think about what happens when the cooking is prolonged?

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja mikemcgarry pls help

Also, what is C doing? Because if low intake endangers then we should anyway eat the artificial fat. If it doesnt endanger, then we should avoid artificial fat. Can I eliminate C only on the fact that it doesnt really say anything about the vitamins, which is an important part of the conclusion?

Chitra657 - Focus on your argument.
Some people are told to reduce fat. An artificial fat is being touted for food prep (to cook food in) for these people. But this fat absorbs away essential nutrients.
Hence, don't use this artificial fat.

That is all the argument says. How do we evaluate this? In various ways. Whether the essential nutrients can be obtained in another way. Whether there is another good substitute of fat for cooking for these people? What is worse for them - not using this artificial fat or losing on essential minerals ... etc.

Both your options (B) and (C) are out of scope.

B) Whether any of the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are destroyed by prolonged cooking

Our argument has not mentioned "prolonged" cooking. What the fat does in that extreme situation is irrelevant. We are just talking about what the fat does during regular cooking.

(C) Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health

Again our argument doesn't talk about "extremely low" fat intake. So what impact that extreme situation has is again irrelevant. We are just talking about reducing fat intake for people who have been advised to do so.

KarishmaB Ma'am,

Please evaluate my reasoning for option B.

Taking a "yes" for the question:-
Yes Vitamins that artificial fat absorbs are present in foods containing the fat. Doesn't this weaken the conclusion?
The vitamins that fats absorb are present in foods containing the fat. Hence, we should avoid using this artificial fat.

When we answer "No", we get Vitamins that the artificial fats absorb are not present in fat. Hence, we should continue using artificial fat.

Please evaluate where am I going wrong.

Thanks

Artificial fat has a drawback - it absorbs away some essential vitamins. It doesn't matter which food provides those vitamins - the food which has artificial fat or the other food taken during that time. The point is that the author is saying that don't use this artificial fat in your meals. It will absorb the essential vitamins from your meal - whichever food may carry those essential vitamins.
So whether the food with the artificial fat has the vitamins or some other food which you are consuming as part of the meal has the vitamins is irrelevant. Whichever food has the vitamins, will be stripped off of them.

KarishmaB Ma'am,

Just to rephrase
Even if we get to know whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in other fats too does not tell us whether we should do away with consuming the artificial fat or not?

Now am I correct in my reasoning?

Hence, this answer choice is incorrect.

I am not sure you have got it. Consider the scenario:

For a meal, Andy plans to have some roasted chicken with some vegetables.
Roasting the chicken requires some kind of fat. Currently, he uses canola oil for roasting but his doctor has told him to reduce fat intake.

In the market, there is something called an artificial fat available. It looks and tastes like canola oil but does not have its calories. So he considers buying the artificial fat.

The author of the argument tells him to not buy the artificial fat. He says that this fat will absorb some essential vitamins away from his diet so his body will not be able to absorb it. So whatever essential vitamins will be there in his meal (which includes chicken roasted in artificial oil and vegetables), they will become unavailable to his body.

Now, think about it, does it matter whether the chicken has the vitamins or the vegetables? No. Whatever food has the vitamins, they will be absorbed away when consumed with artificial oil (present in the roasted chicken). When ingested together, the artificial oil will strip away those vitamins from the meal.

(B) Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat

(B) asks whether it is useful to evaluate whether the food that contains the fat ( i.e. the food that contains the artificial fat i.e. our roasted chicken) is the one which has vitamins in it. Is it useful to evaluate? No. It doesn't matter whether the chicken has the vitamins or the vegetables. When consumed together, the artificial fat will absorb the vitamins.

Hence (B) is incorrect.

I went with B - Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat
Idk where am I going wrong
If vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain fat then we are at a risk by using art. fat but if the vitamins absorbed by art. fat are not present in foods that contain fat that is they are present in fat free food then we need not worry as for fat free food we won't be using art. fat as there is no original fat which can be substituted by art fat and thus there is no risk of absorbing vitamins

Here the conclusion is that people should completely avoid using a certain artificial fat, and the reason given is that it absorbs essential vitamins. So, if we have to go with the conclusion and validate its grounds of reasoning, isn't it also important to check whether having low fat (when the body is devoid of both artificial fat and the other fat that doctor has asked to reduce) is dangerous in the longer run? Please explain which is more necessary. A or C

Great question!

In this passage, the columnist addresses people "whose medical advisers have advised them to reduct their fat intake." So we know these people are trying to reduce their fat intake, but we can't necessarily conclude from this they'll have extremely low fat intake, as (C) says. Maybe they will only reduce their fat intake from high to medium? Based on the passage, we have no basis to conclude these people will use the artificial fat to achieve extremely low fat intake.

In fact, if the people are following the advice of medical advisers, they presumably would not be advised to reduce fat to dangerously low levels. For all these reasons, we can eliminate (C).

Now here's (A):


The columnist's position is based on the idea that the artificial fat "absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body." But is this really a problem? Well, if you could increase your intake of vitamins to compensate for this negative effect, it wouldn't really be a problem. And if that were the case, the columnist's position would fall apart. So (A) would definitely be important to determine.

I hope that helps!

Columnist's position / conclusion: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat

What is the one question we can ask to determine whether the columnist's POV is valid?



If YES, then the columnist's conclusion is weakened, as people need not avoid using the artificial fat as they can simply supplement the loss of vitamins
If NO, then the columnist's conclusion is strengthened, as people should avoid using the artificial fat as its drawback cannot be rectified

Option A successfully passes the YES-NO test, therefore it is our answer

I originally selected Option B, but realized it was wrong due to the following reason:

Argument/Conclusion: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat that has been touted as a resource for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake.

Premise 1 & 2: Although the artificial fat, which can be used in place of fat in food preparation, has none of the negative health effects of fat, it does have a serious drawback: it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body.

(B) Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat.
B is wrong because even if the Vitamins are present in the food, it says the fats are "preventing them from being used by the body"

KarishmaB - can you please explain this
Still not convinced why B is incorrect

kashking - Take a look here. I have explained option (B) here.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/columnist-pe ... l#p2998043

I found this answer very helpful in Manhattan forum:

Evaluate problems can generally be converted into weakening (or strengthening) problems.

Whenever you have an Evaluate the Conclusion question, you want to stick as closely to the premises and the conclusion as possible. Let's review the argument:

Conclusion: People should not use the fat substitute.
Premise: The fat substitute absorbs certain essential vitamins, thus the body cannot use them.

the argument is telling us not to use the fat substitute BECAUSE then the body will not get certain essential vitamins from food.

What am I assuming? That there is no other reasonable way to obtain these vitamins. I read this and immediately thought, well, what about vitamin supplements?

Answer Choice A directly addresses this assumption: if one can take additional vitamins this weakens the argument. If one cannot take additional vitamins then the argument is strengthened.

Answer Choice C is out of scope. It is not addressing the link between the premise and the conclusion. Also, note that we don't know if this substitute will cause an "extremely low fat intake". It just appears to replace some fats.

Understanding the argument - The columnist concludes that "People should avoid using certain artificial fat." Why? Because it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body.

In the Evaluate question, we are checking the validity of the argument. How do we do that - by asking the question along the lines of assumption? Yes.

Option Elimination -

(A) Whether increasing one's intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat - take it to two extremes to check.
Yes, increasing one's intake of vitamins can compensate for the effects of artificial fat - which weakens the conclusion.
No, increasing one's intake of vitamins can not compensate for the effects of artificial fat - strengthens the conclusion.

(B) Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat - What if they do or don't do? Does it help you follow the advice of the columnist? No. Wrong. Distortion.

(C) Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health - yes/no. But it doesn't help evaluate the argument in any way, out of scope.

(D) Whether there are any foods that cannot be prepared using the artificial fat as a substitute for other fats - then what? Out of scope.

(E) Whether people are generally able to detect differences in taste between foods prepared using the artificial fat and foods that are similar except for the use of other fats - taste is irrelevant here and out of scope.

All options are irrelevant and would eventually lead to a selection between A and B.

Since the question asks about what must be evaluated to ascertain the validity an Yes or No answer that can definitely validate or invalidate the reasoning would help us arrive at the correct option.

A. Can we negate the effect of artificial fat by taking excess vitamins ?
Yes - Well there is no need to worry about the effect of artificial fat then
No - If not then we should stop taking the artificial fat

B. Does the food that goes along with the artificial fat have the Vitamins ?
Yes - then it will not only absorb the vitamins this food contains , but it will also affect other food taken along with this one
No - even then it's also possible other food containing the same vitamins will be affected by the action of this artificial fat