Sammy: For my arthritis, I am going to try my aunt's diet: large amoun

Question Type: Resolve the Paradox

Argument Analysis: Two contrasting remedial evidences are provided for the condition of arthritis. We have to find a reason that explains why the both can be true at the same time.

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. Incorrect. The key word here is "frequently", hence this may or may not be true in certain cases.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. - Incorrect. Does not explain the discrepancy, as removal of tomatoes & peppers has shown to lessen the arthritis

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. - Correct. If Arthritis by its nature itself is a condition that aggravates or alleviates, then diet is irrelevant.

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. Incorrect. The term, "in general" which is not all inclusive, hence may or may not be true in Pat's brothers case.

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. Incorrect. Out scope, we do not know whether they are related.

Answer C.


Thanks,
GyM

I have a doubt on choice C as it says that arthritis gets worse overtime, however, we can infer from the stimulus that both Sammy’s aunt and Pat’s brother improved the condition sometimes, Pat’s brother even got worse at first, then improved at the same time he gave up on the vegetable, and that means choice C goes against the stimulus, hence it’s wrong.
Can someone clarify this ? Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The portion in red mischaracterizes the meaning of the OA.
from time to time = sometimes.
OA: Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.
The blue portion conveys the following:
The symptoms of arthritis will SOMETIMES IMPROVE without regard to diet, and they will SOMETIMES WORSEN without regard to diet.
This information explains why the aunt and the brother responded differently to the diet of wheat germ and garlic: whereas the aunt's symptoms IMPROVED without regard to this diet, the brother's symptoms WORSENED without regard to this diet.

We need a reason to explain why Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother had different experiences with the same diet

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. We are nowhere told that Sammy's aunt changed her diet more frequently when compared to Pat's brother. So we cannot cite this reason to explain the difference. Incorrect.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.Then why did Pat's brother arthritis get worse on eating garlic?

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.If diet has no role to play, it could explain the different experiences in Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother.

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.But why did Pat's brother arthritis get worse in the first place when he had the same diet as Sammy's aunt? This does not explain the difference

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.This fact is irrelevant to us as we do not know how closely related are Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother.

Bunuel, please change the tag to Resolve the paradox.

Thanks!

Adi93 - done!

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.

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?

Question Type : RESOLVE THE PARADOX..

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
This does not give reasons about the contrasting experience of Pat's brother and Sammy's aunt.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.
This gives reason- Why Sammy's aunty and Pat's brother have similar behavior. But we need choice which explains why both have contrasting behavior?

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.
This gives us a reason: why both had different experiences? It states that improvement or contrasting behavior is general behavior of chronic condition - symptoms improve and worsen from time to time but not because of diet. Correct

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.
This choice only provides results for avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family on men and women. But we don't have any information about how women behaved by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women

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.
Out of scope. Also it only provides detail about same experience not contrasting experience.

C is the Answer

Answer is C because it clearly explains why 2 results are occurred.

A,B,D, and E do not explain the events on both people

We need to resolve the paradox in this question.

The outcomes of the same diet in two different individual are different. We are again given information that one individual did stop eating vegetables and then his condition improved.

Now there can be many reasons for the contrasting outcomes.
There can be some chemical in vegetables which is nullifying the effects of the diet or he may not be following proper diet regiment. He might be taking some other medication for some other illness.

Now coming on to the options only C resolves the paradox.

It removes the link between the Arthritis and the diet. Now the the results are simply chance events.

I noticed that the avg time for correct answers is 1:21. Mine is 2:21. For those who got it correct, how do you do it so quickly?

So clearly some thing is different in two instances. think on the lines that what is different in two times.

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. ---- if this is true that pat's brother should also get relief when he started that diet.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. --- then why two different results?

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. --- Ok , I am skeptical about this choice. Although this is possible that two cases have nothing to do with diet.

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. ---- i think avoiding vegetables is not our aim. even this one is true we will not get the answer of previous question. why two different effects of same diet.

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. --- irrelevant

C is best of the lot.

GMATNinja pikolo2510 generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354

Can you validate my reasoning and PoE?

Start with Q stem:



Underlined portions suggest that I shall be handling some mystery, so let Sherlock Holmes get to task


Here is the crux of conversation:

S is suffering from A, so he decides to follow cure by his Aunt that immediately after eating wheat and garlic,
she got better

P says that when his brother followed same diet, his condition worsened. He, in fact, has stopped consuming
tomatoes and peppers, because of which he recovered.

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

The mystery is why one type of diet worked for one and not for another.


Whether the diet change frequently brings the relief from A or ALWAYS helps to recover does not solve my mystery.


This is an inference, not a solution to resolve the mystery. This is already known from the argument.


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.


Here is where incorrect gender comparison comes into pic. Hope I am correct in rejecting this.


The closeness of relatives is outside the scope of the argument.

How close was I eliminating PoE (out of 10) for this question?

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):

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

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

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

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.**

7/10. I want you to explain how you knew, prior to seeing the answers, that gender was not at issue and diet was:

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.**

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.

I feel that the answer of this question is there in the question stem, which says, “ which of the following would provide a basis for explaining the fact that sammy’s Aunt and pat’s brother had contrasting experiences WITH THE SAME DIET?”

This means that the correct answer choice should eliminate the role of diet. Option C is the only option, which does that as it says “without regard to diet”.

Even if you follow the POE, that leaves you with answer choice c.

Posted from my mobile device

I promise you, I toppled on option D too( for those who did)

BUT experience has taught me that CR question types have a very classic trap of unnecessary comparison, to play with your minds

Now look at what my thought process was

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
This would rather weaken the premise of the second guy, the words in argument premise are like "UNIVERSAL FACTS", never challenge them. Even if it says, the reader is an idiot, accept it and don't take it personally

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers
Again it weakens the premise of second guy

C. seems promising, but still lets read others

D. Classic error of unnecessary comparison, ok fine the men have symptoms alleviated by nightshade family, but doesn't explain why leaving no veggies had the impact

E. Doesn't even talk about the second guy, Don't ignore him, he's the dude you need, he's the one whom we need a contrast with

dear generis,
appreciate your explanation.
would you please elaborate further? I am not sure I have got it absolutely.

#1This 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.
it seems abstract for me.

#2-- the food was not nightshade vegetables
how can I infer this. I think the diet was nightshade vegetables because Pat's brother began that diet, his arthritis got worse. But he has been doing much better since he stopped eating vegetables in the nightshade family, so I can infer that the diet does not include nightshade vegetables.

this question confused me a lot.

genuinely need you help.

other experts, please join. GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

GMATNinja why B is wrong? Tks!