People should avoid taking the antacid calcium carbonate in

Question

People should avoid taking the antacid calcium carbonate in doses larger than half a gram, for despite its capacity to neutralize stomach acids, calcium carbonate can increase the calcium level in the blood and thus impair kidney function. Moreover, just half a gram of it can stimulate the production of gastrin, stomach hormone that triggers acid secretion.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Cessation of gastrin production is a more effective method of controlling excess stomach acid than is direct neutralization of stomach acid.
(B) People who avoid taking more than half a gram of calcium carbonate are less likely than average to suffer from impaired kidney function.
(C) Doses of calcium carbonate smaller than half a gram can reduce stomach acid more effectively than much larger doses do.
(D) Half a gram of calcium carbonate can causally contribute to both the secretion and the neutralization of stomach acids.
(E) Impaired kidney function may increase the level of calcium in the blood.

Tarmac · Answer

D, its a logic game, the first part of the information says 1/2 gram (but not more) is okay, while second part says 1/2 gram can contribute to acid secretion. 

thus exactly 1/2 gram, according to the info, can both neutralize and induce acid

eyunni · Answer

People should avoid taking the antacid calcium carbonate in doses  larger than half a gram 

The above statement says that people should avoid anything more than half a gram. But it does not say that it is ok to consume half a gram or less. Correct?

Tarmac · Answer

Yes, but it states that it is an antacid. antacids reduce acids, when used properly. exactly .5 grams is within the realm of proper use (because it is outside the realm of improper use)

OA??

eyunni · Answer

I am not convinced. Take this similar analogy. One should avoid jumping from a height of more than 1000 ft for safety reasons. Does that mean that jumping from a height of exactly 1000ft is OK? Infact, we do not even know that jumping from a height of 500ft is ok because the statement does not say that. Someone care to reason?

Tarmac · Answer

So what is your answer?

It's an antacid and it explicitly states the function is to neutralize stomach acids. So your example would be more parallel if you said jumping  with a parachute  from more than 1000ft is not okay. Could you then deduce that jumping from 1000ft with a parachute is okay? According to the given information, yes.

eyunni · Answer

Even with the parachute, the situation is no different. I guess it is a question of where to draw the limits of common sense. Anyway, I chose (B) but OA is D.

Tarmac · Answer

i emerge   VICTORIOUS!  

btw there is a big problem with B, because it sneaks in "than average". there is no way to know how the levels of risk relate to any average. If it did not say average, then it would be a plausible answer.

bankerboy30 · Answer

It never says a half a gram can neutralize in the first statement. It says that more than a half a gram can neutralize....

a13ssandra · Answer

I also chose D
It was neither too extreme nor out of scope

YangYichen · Answer

really helped by this one :-D

~thx a lot

Gladiator59 · Answer

Inference type question - we will look for a statement that is 100% supported directly or indirectly by the argument.
  
 People should avoid taking the antacid calcium carbonate in doses larger than half a gram, for despite its capacity to neutralize stomach acids, calcium carbonate can increase the calcium level in the blood and thus impair kidney function.    Okay, so more than half a gram of CC is bad for kidney even though it is great antacid

Moreover,   (contrast) just half a gram of it can stimulate the production of gastrin, stomach hormone that triggers acid secretion.    Half a gram can trigger acid secretion    Not sure if this is bad or good from point of view of neutralizing acid in the stomach.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Cessation of gastrin production is a more effective method of controlling excess stomach acid than is direct neutralization of stomach acid.  Irrelevant asa comparison between the two events is not provided 
(B) People who avoid taking more than half a gram of calcium carbonate are less likely than average to suffer from impaired kidney function.  HOLD, this could be it but are we 100% sure?   TRAP - discard as it is too general to be an inference from given argument 
(C) Doses of calcium carbonate smaller than half a gram can reduce stomach acid more effectively than much larger doses do.  Opposite - the more the better for directly neutralizing acid but there are other side effects 
(D) Half a gram of calcium carbonate can causally contribute to both the secretion and the neutralization of stomach acids.  BNGO - verbatim from the argument. At exactly half gram both things happen 
(E) Impaired kidney function may increase the level of calcium in the blood.  Opposite of what is said to happen 
 
 So (B) vs (D)... 
 
B is more general and cannot be inferred as we need something that is supported 100% by the argument.

Hence Option (D) is our bet.

Best,
Gladi

sahibm97 · Answer

how can't option C WORK??? it clearly states that using less than half a gram would do the job more efficiently than much higher does
this option servers a dual purpose doesn't it??
firstly its doing the job of reducing stomach acid
and secondly since its lesser than half a gram, it wouldn't be harming the kidney as well.
Does it have to be CONSPICUOSLY mentioned in the answer choices whether it is harming the kidney or not or can we just select the options assuming the premises as true??? coz if i were to choose assuming that all premises given are true than it's not necessary for the premise to be present in my answer choices ...it becomes an understated fact doesn't it??

sriharsha4444 · Answer

KarishmaB   Bunuel   ChiranjeevSingh , can you explain why option B can't be the answer here

sriharsha4444 · Answer

is fallacy here in option B like: 
argument says, if X -> then Y. Option B says, if not X -> then not Y which is not necessarily true ?

for ex, 
People who eat chocolates have high sugar levels.

from that we can't infer that people who don't eat chocolates, on average, have low sugar levels.

KarishmaB · Answer

(B) People who avoid taking more than half a gram of calcium carbonate are less likely than average to suffer from impaired kidney function.

The comparison is with "average" people. We cannot compare incidence in an average person and that in those suffering from acidity and taking less than half a gram of calcium carbonate.

Say on average 2% people suffer from impaired kidney function.
What if people with acidity anyway have a higher incidence - say 5% suffer from impaired kidney function?

Then if they take less than half a gram of calcium carbonate, the incidence is likely to remain the same 5%. But if they take more, the incidence is likely to increase to say 6%.

Hence (B) is not correct.

8Harshitsharma · Answer

IMO choice C also follows logically. It only relies on one single line from the argument, but that should not make it incorrect.

Choice D, relying on the point that 1/2g dose of the stated tabs can prove useful for the neutralization of acid in the stomach is a stretch since the passage states "larger than 1/2g dose" of the given tab has the stated effect.

Not a good answer, IMO

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

People should avoid taking the antacid calcium carbonate in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

People should avoid taking the antacid calcium carbonate in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards