It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 09:44

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Math Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1526

Kudos [?]: 950 [1], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2017, 11:01
1
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (01:37) correct 34% (01:57) wrong based on 118 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Which of the following , if true , most seriously weakens the Health Care Advocate's reasoning above?

A. Sales of many common types of fish rich in omega-3 fatty acid have increased over recent years.
B. Heavy consumption of omega-3 fatty acid frequently results in symptoms, such as headaches, and even joint pain.
C. On average, people consumer 5 percent less omega-3 fatty acid today than they did 10 years ago.
D. Most of Colton's population already consume a comparable amount of food rich in omega-3 content from sources other than fish.
E. Many adults currently consumer no omega-3 fatty acid from fish or from sources other than fish.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Kudos [?]: 950 [1], given: 72

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

CAT Tests
Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2017, 11:57
I guess B is the right answer, because it is the only answer which talks about the disadvantages of regularly eating fish.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 481

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2017, 11:59
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Which of the following , if true , most seriously weakens the Health Care Advocate's reasoning above?

A. Sales of many common types of fish rich in omega-3 fatty acid have increased over recent years. -Even though the sales have increased, the consumption is extremely low as per the premise. This point is irrelevant, since it doesn't explain anything regarding the consumption of fish as a source of omega 3.
B. Heavy consumption of omega-3 fatty acid frequently results in symptoms, such as headaches, and even joint pain. -Okay, this is a fact set. Author is not concerned about the symptoms, instead the author is interested in increasing the consumption of fish.
C. On average, people consumer 5 percent less omega-3 fatty acid today than they did 10 years ago. -Irrelevant
D. Most of Colton's population already consume a comparable amount of food rich in omega-3 content from sources other than fish. -Correct. If people are already consuming omega 3 rich diet then eating fish can wait untill a decision is taken that which type of fish should be eaten. This weakens the conclusion of the argument.
E. Many adults currently consumer no omega-3 fatty acid from fish or from sources other than fish. -This strengthens the argument, since it supports that people should start eating fish since omega 3 is not being taken in appropriate quantity by the adults.
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 111

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2017, 12:50
May be B...as consumption of fish will lead to health issues and author is a health advocate.
_________________

GMAT loosers are born not made !!!

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 111

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 598

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 46

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2017, 22:20
My bet on D ..If people already eat food rich in omega 3 , no point of pushing people for diet containing fish..
B does not give a reason why the argument is weak ...There is nothing in argument that fish have high level of omega 3 that can damage one's health....

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 46

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 65

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 84

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2017, 05:28
I think it is B as it weakens as it gives reason why people are so concerned with omega content and why it cannot be pushed back to later

D seems to be a trap choice
If they are already having a source for omega content , they can still eat fish for other advantages (as stated in opening stmnt of the advocate advantages of eating fish are many) unless high omega content possess some issue as mentioned B
_________________

Kudos please if explanation helped
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't stop when you are tired , stop when you are DONE .

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 84

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 481

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2017, 05:43
akshata19 wrote:
I think it is B as it weakens as it gives reason why people are so concerned with omega content and why it cannot be pushed back to later

D seems to be a trap choice
If they are already having a source for omega content , they can still eat fish for other advantages (as stated in opening stmnt of the advocate advantages of eating fish are many) unless high omega content possess some issue as mentioned B


Though I am not sure about the OA, but, in my opinion, you seem to miss the conclusion. The conclusion and argument as a whole is taking into account only "omega 3". The point of dispute among the people is the consumption of fish as a source of omega 3. And the author is pointing to increase the fish consumption, since the intake of omega 3 can be fine-tuned in 2 ways:
1. By controlling FISH's diet
2. By controlling HUMAN diet

So if the people decide to tune fish's diet, then humans won't intake omega 3 in critical quantities.

I may be absolutely wrong on this one, but that's my thinking.

Awaiting the OA. This is turning out to be a good question.

Regards
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 55

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2017, 08:21
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Which of the following , if true , most seriously weakens the Health Care Advocate's reasoning above?


B. Heavy consumption of omega-3 fatty acid frequently results in symptoms, such as headaches, and even joint pain. -- Heavy consumption. How do we define heavy? Is heavy the right amount to meet the needs of our bodies for omega-3's? What if we do not need 'heavy consumption' to get our daily dose of Omega-3's? This is not a weakener, as we could easily consume a minimal amount of fish and meet the requirement.

D. Most of Colton's population already consume a comparable amount of food rich in omega-3 content from sources other than fish. -- If we already meet the requirement, why encourage people to eat more fish? This is our winner!
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 55

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 76

Concentration: General Management, Leadership
CAT Tests
Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 22:17
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Good question!

Argument analysis: Fish consumption in Colton is very low and there many advantages of eating fish, specially O3. So, Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish.

Missing information: Fish is the only source of O3 and none other than fish can provide O3.

If we can suggest any alternatives where o3 can be consumed then the conclusion will be destroyed.

Which of the following , if true , most seriously weakens the Health Care Advocate's reasoning above?

A. Sales of many common types of fish rich in omega-3 fatty acid have increased over recent years.
Increased sales may or may not have a co-relation with Colton's people eating more fish. Eliminate.
B. Heavy consumption of omega-3 fatty acid frequently results in symptoms, such as headaches, and even joint pain.
The word that needs to be noticed is "Heavy consumption".
C. On average, people consume 5 percent less omega-3 fatty acid today than they did 10 years ago.
Comparison to what people had 10 years ago has no relevance today. Out of scope.
D. Most of Colton's population already consume a comparable amount of food rich in omega-3 content from sources other than fish.
Wow, it people already consume other foods that are rich in O3 then why would the policy-makers need to encourage people to eat more fish. This is exactly what we wanted. An alternate which is high in o3.
E. Many adults currently consumer no omega-3 fatty acid from fish or from sources other than fish.
If that;'s the case then this strengthens the argument and policy-makers should certainly encourage people of Colton to eat more fish.

D is out answer.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 76

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2016
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 138

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 10:18
Shouldn't the answer be option B IMHO.

The author states that eating fish has multiple benefits, and that rather than comparing one of the benefits, i.e omega-3 fatty acid per fish type, regulators should first encourage people to have more fish and then look after a relatively lower priority petty issue of omega-3.

Option B does the right thing buy bringing out a point as to why regulation of consumption of fish matters and why is should be looked at first. This weakens the authors statement

Option D just says that one of the positives of fish consumption. i.e omega 3, is being consumed through other sources and hence we do not need to focus on fish consumption immediately, but this option does not say anything about the multiple other benefits that people may be missing by not having adequate amount of fish

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 138

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 50 [1], given: 55

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 10:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
Novice90 wrote:
Shouldn't the answer be option B IMHO.

The author states that eating fish has multiple benefits, and that rather than comparing one of the benefits, i.e omega-3 fatty acid per fish type, regulators should first encourage people to have more fish and then look after a relatively lower priority petty issue of omega-3.

Option D does the right thing buy bringing out a point as to why regulation of consumption of fish matters and why is should be looked at first. This weakens the authors statement

Option B just says that one of the positives of fish consumption. i.e omega 3, is being consumed through other sources and hence we do not need to focus on fish consumption immediately, but this option does not say anything about the multiple other benefits that people may be missing by not having adequate amount of fish


Hi novice90,

You are focusing on the premise, not the conclusion. The light blue is background/premise, while the dark blue is your conclusion. As you can see, D would make the point of eating more fish useless. Therefore, it greatly weakens the argument.

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Does this help?
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017


Last edited by nightblade354 on 12 Oct 2017, 11:17, edited 3 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 50 [1], given: 55

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2016
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 138

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 11:08
nightblade354 wrote:
Novice90 wrote:
Shouldn't the answer be option B IMHO.

The author states that eating fish has multiple benefits, and that rather than comparing one of the benefits, i.e omega-3 fatty acid per fish type, regulators should first encourage people to have more fish and then look after a relatively lower priority petty issue of omega-3.

Option B does the right thing buy bringing out a point as to why regulation of consumption of fish matters and why is should be looked at first. This weakens the authors statement

Option D just says that one of the positives of fish consumption. i.e omega 3, is being consumed through other sources and hence we do not need to focus on fish consumption immediately, but this option does not say anything about the multiple other benefits that people may be missing by not having adequate amount of fish


Hi novice,

You are focusing on the premise, not the conclusion. The light blue is background/premise, while the dark blue is your conclusion. As you can see, B would make the point of eating more fish useless. Therefore, it greatly weakens the argument.

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Does this help?


The author concludes that encouraging consumption should have a higher priority over fine-tuning omega 3 content.

If we can find a statement which says the opposite, that fine-tuning omega 3 consumption should have higher priority than encouraging fish consumption, then this statement would weaken the conclusion of the author.

I believe Option B does that. It says that as excessive omega 3 consumption can be dangerous and hence policy makers should first fine tune its content and then encourage consumption.

Am I thinking in the right manner?

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 138

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 55

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 11:16
Novice90 wrote:
nightblade354 wrote:
Novice90 wrote:
Shouldn't the answer be option B IMHO.

The author states that eating fish has multiple benefits, and that rather than comparing one of the benefits, i.e omega-3 fatty acid per fish type, regulators should first encourage people to have more fish and then look after a relatively lower priority petty issue of omega-3.

Option B does the right thing buy bringing out a point as to why regulation of consumption of fish matters and why is should be looked at first. This weakens the authors statement

Option D just says that one of the positives of fish consumption. i.e omega 3, is being consumed through other sources and hence we do not need to focus on fish consumption immediately, but this option does not say anything about the multiple other benefits that people may be missing by not having adequate amount of fish


Hi novice,

You are focusing on the premise, not the conclusion. The light blue is background/premise, while the dark blue is your conclusion. As you can see, B would make the point of eating more fish useless. Therefore, it greatly weakens the argument.

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many; unfortunately fish consumption in Colton is extremely low. Splitting hairs over whether one fish has less omega-3 fatty acid per serving than other types of fish when the total fat content is low seems to miss the point. Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish, and then worry about fine-tuning either the fish's diet or our diet to edge up the omega-3 content.

Does this help?


The author concludes that encouraging consumption should have a higher priority over fine-tuning omega 3 content.

If we can find a statement which says the opposite, that fine-tuning omega 3 consumption should have higher priority than encouraging fish consumption, then this statement would weaken the conclusion of the author.

I believe Option B does that. It says that as excessive omega 3 consumption can be dangerous and hence policy makers should first fine tune its content and then encourage consumption.

Am I thinking in the right manner?


I misspoke in my last post. I swapped D for B, but D is the correct answer. Option D shows us that if you meet your requirement, you do not need to eat more (which is the conclusion). Thus, this weakens the argument substantially. You are somewhat correct that B does weaken it from a health standpoint, but this brings us to my original post. How much is 'heavy'? And how much do we need to consume to meet this mark? Because we cannot answer these questions, B doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. The argument would be weakened if the passage stated that we NEED TO CONSUME HEAVY AMOUNTS. But the passage doesn't, so we cannot assume this.

Does this help clarify things?
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 55

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2016
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 138

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 11:30
nightblade354 wrote:

I misspoke in my last post. I swapped D for B, but D is the correct answer. Option D shows us that if you meet your requirement(Option D here only speaks about omega 3, what about the other benefits of having fish, as it is mentioned in the premise? How would one get access to the other multiple benefits?), you do not need to eat more (which is the conclusion). Thus, this weakens the argument substantially. You are somewhat correct that B does weaken it from a health standpoint, but this brings us to my original post. How much is 'heavy'? And how much do we need to consume to meet this mark? (Yes and exactly to define how much is "heavy", we require "fine-tuning" of omega 3 first and then consumption promotion ) Because we cannot answer these questions, B doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. The argument would be weakened if the passage stated that we NEED TO CONSUME HEAVY AMOUNTS. But the passage doesn't, so we cannot assume this.

Does this help clarify things?


Thank you for replying back, Nightblade354. Please have a look at comments inline

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 138

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 50 [1], given: 55

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 11:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
Novice90 wrote:
nightblade354 wrote:

I misspoke in my last post. I swapped D for B, but D is the correct answer. Option D shows us that if you meet your requirement(Option D here only speaks about omega 3, what about the other benefits of having fish, as it is mentioned in the premise? How would one get access to the other multiple benefits?), you do not need to eat more (which is the conclusion). Thus, this weakens the argument substantially. You are somewhat correct that B does weaken it from a health standpoint, but this brings us to my original post. How much is 'heavy'? And how much do we need to consume to meet this mark? (Yes and exactly to define how much is "heavy", we require "fine-tuning" of omega 3 first and then consumption promotion ) Because we cannot answer these questions, B doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. The argument would be weakened if the passage stated that we NEED TO CONSUME HEAVY AMOUNTS. But the passage doesn't, so we cannot assume this.

Does this help clarify things?


Thank you for replying back, Nightblade354. Please have a look at comments inline


But the city won't have to fine tune if the 'heavy' amount isn't met. For example, let's say doctors want use to eat 15 pieces of candy a day to stay healthy (hypothetically). If a report comes out that says that eating 14 pieces of candy will give us stomach pains, then this won't work. However, if the report says that eating 16 pieces will cause us to have pains, then we meet out mark without pain. Therefore, relating to the fish problem, we MIGHT not have to meet the 'heavy' threshold, therefore, we cannot assume we would meet it. So the argument is not weakened by this point. We might not have to fine tune the plan because it might not be needed. The people might not have these problems because we don't know what the threshold is.

Does this help any further?
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Kudos [?]: 50 [1], given: 55

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jan 2017
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 14

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 17:49
This question makes no sense to me--nowhere are we told that Omega 3s are the only benefits of fish. I feel that D almost strengthens the conclusion by saying "everyone is getting enough Omega 3 no point in splitting hairs over it..." can someone please explain?

Feel that B is still the more logical answer given the above--thank you

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 14

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Oct 2017
Posts: 1

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

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2017, 01:51
Even I believe B to be the right option

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 76

Concentration: General Management, Leadership
CAT Tests
Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2017, 02:43
B. Heavy consumption of omega-3 fatty acid frequently results in symptoms, such as headaches, and even joint pain.

B is wrong because of the word heavy. Author's conclusion is "fish consumption in Colton is very low and there are many advantages of eating fish, specially O3. So, Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish". This option can be considered as a fact or a warning sort of but doesn't weaken the conclusion at all. Had this sentence written as "consumption of omega-3 fatty acid frequently results in symptoms, such as headaches, and even joint pain" we could still consider this option but with "heavy" it is of no use and doesn't weaken the conclusion.

D. Most of Colton's population already consume a comparable amount of food rich in omega-3 content from sources other than fish.

D is correct because it directly attacks on conclusion that "Colton's policy-makers should encourage people to eat more fish". If people are already consuming "other foods" which are rich in O3 then why would author still think to encourage people to eat more fish.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 76

Re: Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many   [#permalink] 13 Oct 2017, 02:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.