It is difficult to find the precise causes of any disease resulting fr

KaranB1 E is out of scope.

Conclusion is - lack of B1 is not causing disease.

So effect on different individual is irrelevant

Hi, i was confused between b &D, since both are tempting. So i wanted to understand what makes option D a better choice over option B

abhishek31

Given in passage - beriberi was always accompanied by a deficiency of vitamin B1

Option B - (B) A deficiency in vitamin B1 is not necessary to contract beriberi.


Option B is attacking the premise

The passage indicates that:

A deficiency in all B-vitamins was known to cause beriberi.
A deficiency in B1 (vitamin B1, or thiamine) is always associated with beriberi.
Recent experiments showed that human volunteers deficient only in B1 did not contract beriberi.
This contradiction suggests that B1 deficiency alone is insufficient to cause beriberi; other B-vitamins are likely necessary as well.

D resolves the contradiction by explaining that beriberi is caused by deficiencies in a combination of B-vitamins, not just B1. This aligns with the earlier finding that being deficient in all B-vitamins causes beriberi.
Why not the other options?
A: This introduces a new idea about a generally unhealthy diet, which is outside the scope of the question and not mentioned in the passage.
B: This contradicts the information given; B1 deficiency is necessary but not sufficient alone to cause beriberi.
C: This discusses a cure, not the cause of beriberi.
E: This is too broad and unrelated to the specific experiment mentioned.

The Goal of the argument is to resolve the paradox why the deficiency of B1 did not cause Beriberi. E does resolve the paradox in any way.

It is given in the passage that " beriberi was always accompanied by a deficiency of vitamin B1" and option B directly attacks it. Our goal is to resolve the paradox but not to weaken the argument. Therefore, D is the best fit for it. I hope this makes some sense.