ShankSouljaBoi wrote:
Option C states that when the cause (average fat intake) is lesser , the effect is (cancer) is still there. This weakens the argument, does it not ? Please guide
Regards
Careful - you make a pretty big paraphrase in the way you interpret (C). (C) adds the concept of death to an argument that otherwise doesn't include it at all. The conclusion is just about reducing the risk of cancer, and the premises are about fat intake and cancer incidence. So right away I'd be super skeptical of adding "death."
Think about it this way - what if (and this may well be true) in those low fat intake countries, they don't eat a lot of fat because they just don't have much income and so they can't afford to eat foods that are high in fat...but that also means that they can't afford good healthcare. So if you get cancer - even if it's more rare than in other, wealthier countries - it's a guaranteed death sentence, so it's a leading cause of death. Whereas in the countries with higher fat intake, cancer certainly occurs more, but they're wealthier countries so doctors catch and treat cancer much more quickly. (C) Is still very true, but doesn't weaken the argument.
And that hypothetical is pretty specific - you don't need to come up with something like that on test day just to eliminate (C) - but hopefully it helps as an example. Really what's hugely important is that (C) doesn't measure fat intake and cancer
incidence...it measures fat intake and cancer
deaths. And cancer deaths are different than cancer incidence.