Ahmed9955 wrote:
vikasp99 wrote:
Myrna: People should follow diets in which fat represents no more than 30 percent of total calories, not the 37 percent the average diet in this country contains.
Roland: 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. Modifying our diet is not worthwhile. 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.
Myrna: But for everyone who dies early from a high-fat diet, many more people suffer from serious chronic diseases because they followed such diets.
Roland's argument assumes that
(A) it is desirable to live in such a way as to length life as much as possible
(B) a low-fat diet cannot readily be made appealing and satisfying to a person who follows it regularly
(C) diet is the only relevant factor to consider in computing influences on length of life
(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
(E) not everyone in the country eats the average diet
Source: LSAT
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.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA