Myrna: People should follow diets in which fat represents no more than

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. In fact, Roland argues that the slightly lengthened life-span is not worth the sacrificial changes in diet.

(B) Yes. Roland’s argument is based on the comparative value of two possibilities:

1) A higher-fat diet and a shorter life-span.
2) An “unappealing low-fat diet” and a longer life-span.

However, he does not consider a third possibility—that a low-fat diet can be appealing and still increase life-span.

(C) No. Nothing indicates that Roland makes this assumption. The argument mentions only diet because it is the particular factor that Myrna and Roland are discussing.

(D) No. Just the opposite. Roland states that a low-fat diet would be “unappealing” and would require a “lifetime of sacrifice.”

(E) No. This is irrelevant: Roland’s argument is directed toward those who do have a higher-fat diet. In fact, if many people have a low-fat diet instead of the “average” diet, his argument could be weakened if those people found their nutritional lifestyle to be worthwhile.
_________________

Answer is B
Spotted this right after finishing reading Roland's reply, before getting to the question. He assumes that if a food is low in fat, it cannot taste good by definition.
I have a few friends who think like that

DavidTutorexamPAL why C is wrong ?
If we negate it the argument falls apart

Diet happens to be the topic for discussion, but the two speakers are not deciding over which factors are important in extending ones life, i.e. they talk in the context of diet.

Hope this helps.

Please help me understand why C is not the correct option here.

Could someone explain why C is incorrect? I understand that the extreme of "...only relevant factor..." could make it an incorrect choice, but nevertheless, I don't see how B is making a better assumption.

In answer B, I can't find a reference to "satisfying" food. Roland only mentions the "appealing" part of the low-fat diet. But even then, the premise and his main conclusion focus on life expectancy rather than the appeal of the food.

The first thing that we need to know is that it is an inference question to Roland's argument. In this case, Roland argues, it is not worth it to sacrifice an appealing diet with only a three more month length of life.
So we need to look for the answer which supports the joy of food tastiness and does not support the low fat diet in the sacrifice for a short time of living.

(A) it is desirable to live in such a way as to length life as much as possible => It is part of Myrna's point of view, not Roland.

(B) a low-fat diet cannot readily be made appealing and satisfying to a person who follows it regularly => This choice support Roland's opinion. So it is a correct answer.

(C) diet is the only relevant factor to consider in computing influences on length of life. => Noone states that diet is the only factor.

(D) the difference in tastiness between a diet in which fat represents 30 percent of total calories and one in which it represents 37 percent is not noticeable. => this answer is totally different from Roland's argument. Roland supported that the high fat diet is significantly tastier than the regular diet, so that it is not worth sacrificing.

(E) not everyone in the country eats the average diet => Not relevant.

(A) it is desirable to live in such a way as to length life as much as possible
Trap answer. This is Myrna's argument.

(B) a low-fat diet cannot readily be made appealing and satisfying to a person who follows it regularly
This justifies Roland's argument. If a low-fat diet cannot be made appealing, than there's truly no point in sacrificing the appealing, high-fat diet, only to lengthen one's life by an average of 3 months.

(C) diet is the only relevant factor to consider in computing influences on length of life
This is out of scope. Both Myrna and Roland are discussing diet and how it effect's one's length of life. We're not concerned with anything that may or may not effect one's length of life in this scenario.

(D) the difference in tastiness between a diet in which fat represents 30 percent of total calories and one in which it represents 37 percent is not noticeable
This would actually discredit Roland's argument. If the difference in taste is unnoticeable, than one would choose the healthier alternative without question.

(E) not everyone in the country eats the average diet
This is irrelevant. By saying "average" we know that some are above that and some are below that.

The correct answer is answer choice B.


Please give kudos if this was helpful in any way!

Roland's argument assumes that

(A) it is desirable to live in such a way as to length life as much as possible --> This is exactly the reverse of what Roland assumes. Wrong.

(B) a low-fat diet cannot readily be made appealing and satisfying to a person who follows it regularly --> If we negate this, the argument falls apart. Correct.

(C) diet is the only relevant factor to consider in computing influences on length of life. --> Ronald is not worried about ways to compute length of life. Wrong.

(D) the difference in tastiness between a diet in which fat represents 30 percent of total calories and one in which it represents 37 percent is not noticeable --> Reverse is true for Roland. Wrong.

(E) not everyone in the country eats the average diet --> Negate it. Still argument holds. Wrong.

Thanks!

Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun ,

Although I got the correct answer, I took longer to answer the question.
Ans choice B was something I pre-thought, but when I cross checked with the conclusion, it took me longer to analyse.

Can anyone help me in identifying whether my deconstruction of Roland argument is correct?

Here's what I think.

PREMISE -If everyone in the country followed you recommendation during his or her entire life,

INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION- just 0.2 percent would lengthen their live at all, and then only by an average of 3 months.

CONCLUSION -Modifying our diet is not worthwhile.

PREMISE -A lifetime of sacrifice spent eating an unappealing low-fat diet is too high a price to pay for the chance of extending that sacrifice for 3 months.

Ahmed

Hope I understood your thought-process well.
Here's my inputs meanwhile.
Intermediate conclusion is not there. What you consider as so is the reasoning - a part of the conditional "if".
"A lifetime of sacrifice spent eating an unappealing low-fat diet is too high a price to pay for the chance of extending that sacrifice for 3 months" is intermediate conclusion, forming a part of the premise.

So, it goes like this
If everyone in the country followed you recommendation during his or her entire life ----> just 0.2 percent would lengthen their live at all, and then only by an average of 3 months ----> A lifetime of sacrifice spent eating an unappealing low-fat diet is too high a price to pay for the chance of extending that sacrifice for 3 months. ----> Modifying our diet is not worthwhile.

HTH.
_________________