Dietary researcher: A recent study reports that laboratory animals that were fed reduced-calorie diets lived longer than laboratory animals whose caloric intake was not reduced. In response, some doctors are advocating reduced-calorie diets, in the belief that North Americans’ life spans can thereby be extended. However, this conclusion is not supported. Laboratory animals tend to eat much more than animals in their natural habitats, which leads to their having a shorter life expectancy. Restricting their diets merely brings their caloric intake back to natural optimal levels and reinstates their normal life spans.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the dietary researcher’s argument?
(A) North Americans, on average,
consume a higher number of calories than the optimal number of calories for a human diet. - CORRECT. POE helps. Not good to choose but anyway. This is not best since nothing about life expectancy is mentioned or inferable.
(B) North Americans with high-fat,
low-calorie diets generally have a shorter life expectancy than North Americans with low-fat,
low-calorie diets. - WRONG. Already low calorie diet. Fat is not a factor here. Importantly the comparison is not helpful.
(C)
Not all scientific results that have important implications for human health
are based on studies of laboratory animals. - WRONG. 2nd best for me. Which ones are or which ones not? Nothing specific about the study in the passage.
(D)
Some North Americans who follow reduced-calorie diets are long-lived. - WRONG. Exceptions which is not helpful to make a generic statement or support it.
(E) There is a
strong correlation between diet and longevity in some species of animals. - WRONG. Is it positive one or a negative one? we don't know so eliminate.
Answer A.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA