Despite the popularity of vitamin and mineral supplements, people taki

argument structure says
A+B = A ... this means B does not have any significant value
E says exactly the same

(E) is saying what the conclusion says "the pills are almost useless". If you take the vitamins, you eat vegetables. If you don't eat vitamins, you eat vegetables. I agree it is a little confusing, but reading it enough times helped me understand it. I got it through POE, too, so I was confused as well.

Despite the popularity of vitamin and mineral supplements, people taking them are not giving themselves any significant nutritional advantage. Vitamins and minerals derived from fresh fruits and vegetables have far more potency than those processed in pill form. Not long ago, the Surgeon General recommended that people consume five servings of fruit and vegetables each day.

Conclusion: People consume five servings of fruit and vegetable each day.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the above conclusion is based?

A) Vitamins supplements offer no health benefits.
Negate: Vitamins supplements offer health benefits.
This does not break the conclusion. We know that the supplements do offer nutritional benefits but they are not significant.

B) Meats and fish do not contain healthy levels of vitamins and minerals.
Negate: Meat and fish contain healthy levels of vitamins and minerals.
This doesn’t break the conclusion.

C) Frozen vegetables and fruits are not an adequate source of vitamin nutrition.
Negate: Frozen veggies and fruits are an adequate source of vitamins
This doesn’t break the conclusion.

D) It would take an enormous amount of fresh fruits and vegetables, consumed on a daily basis, to offer a worthwhile health advantage.
Negate: It would take a less amount of fresh fruits and veggies to offer a worthwhile health advantage
This too does not break the conclusion. Five servings could a lot more than what is required.

E) People who consume vitamins and minerals in pill form would consume significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not they take vitamin and mineral supplements.
Negate: People who consume vitamins and minerals in pill form would not consume significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not they take vitamin and mineral supplements.
Now, we know that the pills have far less potency than fresh veggies and fruits and that supplements do not provide a significant nutritional advantage. The recommendation of five servings might be sufficient for the people who already consume a significant amount of veggies and fruits but might be insufficient for other people. This negated statement breaks the conclusion.

The conclusion states: people who are taking vitamin and mineral supplements are not giving themselves nutritional advantage.
Premise: the vitamins and minerals from fruits and vegetables are far more potent.

A) Vitamins supplements offer no health benefits: Even if they do, their potency is in comparison. Irrelevant.
B) Meats and fish do not contain healthy levels of vitamins and minerals. OOS.
C) Frozen vegetables and fruits are not an adequate source of vitamin nutrition. OOS.
D) It would take an enormous amount of fresh fruits and vegetables, consumed on a daily basis, to offer a worthwhile health advantage. Exaggerated.
E) People who consume vitamins and minerals in pill form would consume significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not they take vitamin and mineral supplements. If people who take supplements also take fruits and vegetables in large amounts then they are definitely at nutritional advantage. Hence, for the conclusion to hold true it is assumed that people either take pills or fruits and vegetables in large amounts but not both.

Therefore, E.

I see lot of different views among comments here.

Can someone please break down this question. what is conclusion the 2nd line or 1st line.

abhimahna Please help me out here.

Hey Nightmare007 ,

Here is how I would break down the argumenet.

Fact 1: Despite the popularity of vitamin and mineral supplements, people taking them are not giving themselves any significant nutritional advantage.

Fact 2: Vitamins and minerals derived from fresh fruits and vegetables have far more potency than those processed in pill form.

Conclusion: Not long ago, the Surgeon General recommended that people consume five servings of fruit and vegetables each day.

So, my conclusion is the recommendation of the surgeon.

Author said you cannot get enough nutrients from supplements than what you can get from fruits and vegetables. Then the author brought the recommendation of Surgeon. This recommendation is actually indirectly telling author's conclusion.

And the assumption here is people will actually eat that amount of fruits and vegetables in order to maintain the nutritional value they are getting from pills.

Does that make sense?

Thanks a lot.
I was confused. Whether the surgeon's opinion was stated to support his conclusion in 2nd line.
.

Despite the popularity of vitamin and mineral supplements, people taking them are not giving themselves any significant nutritional advantage. Vitamins and minerals derived from fresh fruits and vegetables have far more potency than those processed in pill form. Not long ago, the Surgeon General recommended that people consume five servings of fruit and vegetables each day.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the above conclusion is based?

A) Vitamins supplements offer no health benefits.
B) Meats and fish do not contain healthy levels of vitamins and minerals.
C) Frozen vegetables and fruits are not an adequate source of vitamin nutrition.
D) It would take an enormous amount of fresh fruits and vegetables, consumed on a daily basis, to offer a worthwhile health advantage.
E) People who consume vitamins and minerals in pill form would consume significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not they take vitamin and mineral supplements.

Answer is E - Vegetable and Fruits have a lot more potency than supplements. So, surgeon said consume vegetables and fruits because the nutrition needed would be fulfilled by five servings of vegetables and fruits rather than processed pills. So, people who are consuming processed pills or not have to surely consume vegetables and fruits.

What is the conclusion of the passage? I think Surgeon General's recommendation is not the conclusion, its a premise a fact. The conclusion is rather "people taking pills are not giving themselves any significant nutritional"

Hello, arorainder07. I can see why you are confused. From what people have written above about the so-called conclusion, so were they. Keep in mind that just because a line happens to fall at the end of a passage does not mean it is a conclusion. You can make a case for a conclusion by using a transition test: any of thus, therefore, hence, or as a result will do ahead of the line in question. Looking at this passage, we see that the latter part of line one reads more like an argument; if you were to move it to the end, it would be a no-brainer conclusion. The other two lines provide background information or premises for that conclusion. Consider the buildup to the last line between the original passage and a variation:


Now, take a look at a 3-2-1 order:


If other lines provide insight into why a conclusion has been drawn or how an argument may be grounded, then you can feel more confident in calling that final line a conclusion. The line about the Surgeon General in the original passage does not logically follow from the others. Why would the passage pass judgment on people who take supplements, and why would the Surgeon General care enough about that opinion to make a recommendation? No, the arrow of logic points more convincingly to a 3-2-1 interpretation, as does the correct answer. (To strengthen or weaken an argument, you must identify the argument; to find an assumption underlying a conclusion, you must also identify the argument. Otherwise, you would expect the question stem to refer to the recommendation of the Surgeon General.)

I enjoyed working through this question. If it were a boldface version, I would call line one the conclusion every time.

- Andrew

­Breakdown of the Argument:

Conclusion: People taking vitamin and mineral supplements are not giving themselves any significant nutritional advantage.

Supporting Premise: Vitamins and minerals derived from fresh fruits and vegetables have far more potency than those processed in pill form.

Background Information: The Surgeon General recommended that people consume five servings of fruits and vegetables each day.

Identifying the Assumption:

The argument concludes that supplements do not provide significant nutritional benefits because fresh fruits and vegetables are more potent sources of vitamins and minerals. For this reasoning to hold, the argument must assume that people who take supplements are not also getting these potent nutrients from fresh fruits and vegetables. If people are getting these nutrients from fresh sources, they might still be obtaining the significant nutritional benefits that the argument claims they lack.

Analysis of Each Answer Choice:

A) Vitamins supplements offer no health benefits.

• Analysis: This choice is too extreme. The argument does not claim that supplements offer no health benefits at all; it only claims that they don't provide a "significant nutritional advantage" compared to fresh fruits and vegetables. Therefore, this is not a necessary assumption.

B) Meats and fish do not contain healthy levels of vitamins and minerals.

• Analysis: The argument compares supplements to fresh fruits and vegetables, not to meats and fish. Whether meats and fish contain healthy levels of vitamins and minerals is irrelevant to the argument. Therefore, this is not an assumption on which the conclusion depends.

C) Frozen vegetables and fruits are not an adequate source of vitamin nutrition.

• Analysis: The argument distinguishes between fresh produce and supplements but does not discuss frozen produce. The argument's validity doesn't hinge on the adequacy of frozen fruits and vegetables. This is not an assumption of the argument.

D) It would take an enormous amount of fresh fruits and vegetables, consumed on a daily basis, to offer a worthwhile health advantage.

• Analysis: This choice suggests that even fresh fruits and vegetables require consumption in large quantities to be beneficial, which would undermine the argument’s premise that they are more potent than supplements. This contradicts the reasoning rather than supports it, so this is not an assumption.

E) People who consume vitamins and minerals in pill form would consume significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not they take vitamin and mineral supplements.

• Analysis: This choice implies that those taking supplements are already consuming fresh fruits and vegetables, which would mean they are getting the potent nutrients from the latter source. The argument's conclusion that supplements provide no significant advantage assumes that those taking supplements are not getting significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables. Therefore, if this statement were true, it would weaken the argument, indicating that the negation of this choice is necessary for the argument to hold. This makes it a key assumption.

Correct Answer:

E) People who consume vitamins and minerals in pill form would consume significant amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not they take vitamin and mineral supplements.

This is the correct assumption because the argument depends on the idea that people who take supplements aren't also getting enough fresh fruits and vegetables, which would otherwise provide them with the nutrients they need.