Quote:
Researcher: The calories in, calories out diet and fitness paradigm needs to be replaced. It perpetuates a simplistic view of what people consume and how the body converts such fuel into energy. You can’t just add up calories from a packaging label or even a food scale and then exercise long enough to burn that number of calories.
Dietician: Then you’re arguing against an established law of thermodynamics.
Researcher: That’s just the point. The body, as a thermodynamic unit, burns calories even at rest. It takes energy for the heart to keep pumping, the brain to continue functioning, and other organs to carry out myriad other processes, all at the same time. The paradigm doesn’t account for the many calories burned just to keep the body alive.
The researcher responds to the dietician’s objection by _____.
I know what you might be thinking: official CR questions do not have three separate speaking parts in a dialogue-based format. But first, you should be comfortable with the idea that not everything in the
OG may be representative of all that can appear on the test. And second, you might not know the catalogue of official questions as well as you think, as
this GMAT Prep question, with a dialogue in three parts, will attest.
Rather than break down the passage line by line, I think it would be better to gather what lies at the heart of the debate between the researcher and the dietician.
- The researcher argues against the calories in, calories out diet and fitness paradigm
- The dietician objects, as the question stem phrases it, on scientific grounds—you do not have to know the laws of thermodynamics to take on the question, but you should appreciate that a certain law is established
Quote:
(A) agreeing that the laws of thermodynamics do not adequately explain the processes by which the human body uses energy in the form of calories
The response in question relies heavily on contextual information. As a standalone line,
That’s just the point can appear to be in agreement with the previous line. However, the remainder of the dialogue, in particular the final line, should make it clear that the researcher is sticking to his guns, as the saying goes, and disagreeing with
the paradigm, not with any law of thermodynamics. In fact, it seems as though the researcher is invoking thermodynamics to reaffirm the earlier argument. See the examples in lines two and three, which are prefaced by
[t]he body, as a thermodynamic unit. It is hard to ignore this content in an effort to support this answer choice.
Quote:
(B) drawing on a comparison and providing examples to strengthen a counterargument
There are
examples in that last bit of dialogue, but there is no comparison to be found. The
as in
as a thermodynamic unit should be interpreted as an explanation:
because it is a thermodynamic unit.
Quote:
(C) reasserting the original argument and broadening its scope to resolve an inherent discrepancy
Be careful with this one. An
inherent discrepancy is a statement that seems to bend the rules of accepted fact and would require further explanation to allow someone to evaluate properly. If I tell you that gravity is not present where I am, you have a right to wonder whether I am in outer space. There is no inherent discrepancy in the first spoken part (even if the dietician would probably believe so). The researcher disagrees with a certain diet and fitness paradigm and briefly outlines why. If you are working too fast, this one can be an alluring option, since the earlier half of the answer choice looks perfectly reasonable.
Quote:
(D) proposing an alternative hypothesis, in light of that objection
Probably the easiest elimination. It should be apparent that the researcher does not change tack. The very reference in the final line to
the paradigm should make it clear that this is the same paradigm as before, and that the original objections are still in place.
Quote:
(E) explaining how the content of the objection, in reality, supports the original argument
Context is everything in verbal communication (even when reported in writing). The
objection is that the researcher is
arguing against an established law of thermodynamics. The researcher turns around and says no, it is
because of this unnamed law of thermodynamics that the paradigm fails. There is nothing to find fault with in this answer choice.
In all, not the easiest question, in my view, with two pretty reasonable options in (A) and (C) that could easily snare a test-taker who was not paying close enough attention to every word in the answer choice. I am reminded of
a difficult boldface question that I dug up from the archives a few months back. In a very different sense from more typical usage, watch that language.
Well done if you navigated this minefield successfully. Good luck with the rest of the competition.
- Andrew
_________________
Please use
official questions from the Official Guide or Verbal Review to practice for the Verbal section.
14 Jul 2022, 07:00
62%
(01:51)
correct 
close
