Health care advocate: The advantages of eating fish are many

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

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!

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?

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?

I guess B is the right answer, because it is the only answer which talks about the disadvantages of regularly eating fish.

May be B...as consumption of fish will lead to health issues and author is a health advocate.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

Even I believe B to be the right option

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.

I do not like this question at all.
The argument structure and the pattern of options look strange.
This question is not hard obviously.

I don't understand how D can be the correct answer for this question?

It seems more of a strengthener to the conclusion than a weakener. To further illustrate the reason of why I think so:

The advocate says there are MANY advantages of eating fish. He further goes on to say that the policy-makers are splitting hair over the omerta content. He then concludes that there is no point splitting hair, rather the policy makers should promote fish as a diet (presumably because there are MANY other advantages of a fish diet) and later worry about the content (in saying so, he gives lesser importance to the omerta content) .

Option D clearly states that Omerta content is available in other foods. Hence, this will strengthen his conclusion of giving less importance to the content (since it is already available in other food).

Please correct me if i am missing something logically?