Sajjad1994 wrote:
Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective in curbing the detrimental effects of osteoporosis, a condition characterized by the thinning of bone tissue and loss of bone density over time. This bone deterioration leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture, and osteoporosis can be blamed for three hundred thousand broken hips a year in the United States. Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury. But strangely, recent studies show that the death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.
Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?
A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.
B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.
C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.
D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.
E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.
Taking calcium curbs the detrimental effects of osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture.
Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury.
Death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.
So calcium intake helps in dealing with osteoporosis which presents danger to life.
But a recent study shows that 2000 mg leads to higher death rate than 500 mg (not related to osteoporosis).
So it looks like some calcium intake is good but higher intake has other issues. We need to find an option that explains this.
A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.
Doesn't tell us that supplements are bad. How they got their calcium is irrelevant.
B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.
Why they started taking calcium is again irrelevant. Perhaps they were taking calcium for another reason. We are just given that the study found that men who were taking 2000 mg had higher death rate. Whether taking calcium was justified or not, it doesn't tell us.
C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.
Irrelevant.
D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.
If we are given that too much calcium is bad for us, that could explain the paradox, right? Though intake of calcium helps fight detrimental effects of osteoporosis, 2000 mg must be excessive for people so taking that is proving to be harmful.
E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.
Irrelevant.
Answer (D)