adkikani wrote:
GMATNinja pikolo2510 generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354Can you validate my reasoning and PoE?
Quote:
Which of the following, if true, would provide a basis for explaining the fact that Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother had contrasting experiences with the same diet?
Quote:
Sammy: For my arthritis, I am going to try my aunt's diet: large amounts of wheat germ and garlic. She was able to move more easily right after she started that diet.
Pat: When my brother began that diet, his arthritis got worse. But he has been doing much better since he stopped eating vegetables in the nightshade family, such as tomatoes and peppers.
How close was I eliminating PoE (out of 10)
for this question?
Quote:
The mystery is why one type of diet worked for one and [HURT] not for another.
9/10. Very good. "Hurt" is better than "not helped" to convey the issue more accurately.
For those who might have had a hard time formulating the discrepancy: always look at the question again. Apparently GMAC decided to hit us upside the head with a two-by-four. (From the PROMPT):
Quote:
[explain] the fact that Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother had contrasting experiences [one experience was GOOD, one was BAD] with the same diet
We have just been
handed the general outline of the discrepancy.
Generally, correct answers will contain missing information or a missing perspective. Beware of:
-- distracting information
-- information that ignores half of the conflict
-- information that aggravates or intensifies the discrepancy or paradox
Quote:
Quote:
A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
Whether the diet change
frequently brings the relief from A or ALWAYS helps to recover
does not solve my mystery.7/10 Asserted, not explained.
WHY does this "frequently brings relief" not solve your mystery? I have to guess.
The brother is left out. He was hurt by wheat and garlic. In this case, "frequently any change brings relief" may or may not explain the aunt, but the phrase does not address the brother at all.
"Addressing only one side" is a common answer trap. ELIMINATE
This option is also a tame example of another very common trap answer, "Worsen the contradiction."
(I say "tame" because the answer is qualified by "frequently" -- but the thrust is still to widen the disparity.)
Take a look at "regardless of the nature of the change..."
If ANY change should help frequently, then why did a change help one and not the other? Not answered.
This option just
made the discrepancy worse. It increased the likelihood that the brother should have been helped. If ANY (all) change frequently helps, then it is MORE likely that the brother should have been helped. Explaining why he was not helped just got harder. ELIMINATE
Quote:
Quote:
B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.
This is an inference, not a solution to resolve the mystery.
This is already known from the argument.5/10
Careful. Your reasoning is off. This option is not an inference. If you believe this option to be an inference . . . The inference is not correct and certainly is not "already known."*
It is not an inference. It is an assertion that Helpful Thing in garlic is also in the not-eaten nightshade vegetables. We are supposed to be bamboozled: "Aha! Helpful Thing in garlic is not so helpful because NOT eating it in nightshade vegetables helps the brother and the aunt is a weird case and . . ." RABBIT HOLE. Don't go there.
Option B is an assertion that 1) cannot explain the brother's reaction to wheat; and 2) oddly makes the discrepancy worse.
This answer
arguably makes the discrepancy worse:
" . . . compounds in G. . . that
can lessen the symptoms of arthritis..."
If garlic compounds CAN lessen the symptoms of arthritis; can help people generally as opposed to helping just the aunt (isolated example); now we have even more reason to wonder why the compounds made the brother worse. Also, option B does not explain the contradictory responses to wheat. The contradiction is not resolved for either substance. ELIMINATE
Quote:
Quote:
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.
I was honestly not able to select this as OA, since I am ACTUALLY dealing with change in diet from vegetables
to grain and garlic. I moved on to reject others.
10/10. Smart strategy to avoid rejecting an option if not sure. MUCH IMPROVED on your part.
Although you were too focused on details (certain foods), you did not discard the general option simply on the grounds that it did not include the details. 10/10 for that reason alone.
This option is perfect. Symptoms come and go "without regard to diet." That is, diet has no connection to arthritis. Flare-ups and improvements are common.
If you have arthritis, what you eat (or do not eat) has no effect on your arthritis, good or bad. The brother's flare up after eating garlic and wheat was a coincidence. The aunt's improvement after eating garlic and wheat was a coincidence. Neither coincidence is far-fetched. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms ebb and flow. Discrepancy resolved.
This answer requires synthetic thinking, drawing connections between the very specific and the very general. This answer will seem too general to many people.
It is really hard for analytical thinkers to get the memo about supplementing their talents with synthetic thinking. For the vast majority of people, synthetic thinking is not a natural inclination and must be learned. The good news? It absolutely can be learned.**
Quote:
Quote:
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.
Here is where incorrect gender comparison comes into pic. Hope I am correct in rejecting this.
7/10. I want you to explain how you knew, prior to seeing the answers, that gender was not at issue and diet was:
Quote:
I would like to emphasize here that we are more dealing with change in diet than a change in gender since lots of students selected D
Above you simply asserted that the question was about diet and not gender. You did not explain why.
This answer is another common trap:
messing around with one half of the problem, making some distinction or other, and leaving out the other half entirely.Focused on one half (men), and not focused on the real quandary. As far as we know, the aunt never tried the nightshade family vegetables. (focused on one side)
Irrelevant"NO nightshade vegetables" has absolutely nothing to do with the real problem:
-- two people ate the same food
-- the food was not nightshade vegetables
-- one person had a good result and the other had a bad result.
You are correct that the right answer deals with diet and not gender, but I'm not sure that we know that fact before seeing the answers.
Any rule would have to be 100% true about men, and 100% true about women. Such a rule is not likely to exist.
I think it is not quite accurate to say, however, that gender differences are immaterial at the outset.**
Quote:
Quote:
E. People who are closely related are more likely to experience the same result from adopting a particular diet than are people who are unrelated.
The closeness of relatives is outside the scope of the argument.
True. WHY? 9/10 (had you explained why and been correct, 10/10)
For those who got trapped by E: This option would have us focus on Sammy and his aunt, and whether Sammy might benefit from the same diet as that of his aunt. Sammy and his aunt are not the people at issue. (We also have no idea whether they are biologically related.)
adkikani , if you chose option C because you were absolutely certain that all the others were wrong, that's just fine.
Strategic grade, use of PoE 10/10
Overall critical reasoning 7/10, maybe higher. I need reasons why -- not assertions that -- something is X or Y.
(Context comment: your rejections were occasionally a bit off-base, esp. B., and not enough focused on linking the answer to NOT solving the mystery you yourself described)
*No, we do not know from the argument that Helpful Thing in garlic is also in tomatoes and peppers. Brother needs to avoid garlic for SOME reason. May or may not be the same reason that he needs to avoid nightshade vegetables **Previously, I think you would have eliminated this answer because you would have been, as in this case, very focused on actual and specific foods. Detail-oriented and highly analytic thinkers are common. You have many pals.
The task is to supplement those tendencies with "big picture" thinking and synthetic thinking.
Synthetic thinking = "the combination of ideas into a complex whole."
Analytic vs synthetic thinking - See Lavina Agarwal's answer*** Suppose D said: "Men with arthritis can always be helped by diet, but only by not eating vegetables from the nightshade family.
Women with arthritis can always be helped by diet, but women can be helped by a much wider variety of foods than those that help men."
In that case, we have a "men always" and a "women always." The brother is male. The aunt is female. If my hypothetical D were an option, gender might well have something to do with the discrepancy. We know that gender is not the cause of the discrepancy only after we read C. Not buying that argument? Then tell me why, before seeing the answers, we know that the answer is not about gender and is about diet. _________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!