Bunuel wrote:
People whose diets are high in sugar are significantly more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than are those whose diets contain relatively little sugar. Limiting the amount of sugar in one's diet should consequently reduce one's likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?
A. Most people who have a genetic predisposition to type 2 diabetes have no more sugar in their diet than people without the predisposition.
B. The sugar in some foods is less easily absorbed by the body than the sugar in other foods.
C. Those who consume more refined sugar than natural sugar are significantly more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than are those who consume more natural sugar than refined sugar.
D. Sugar is not an essential component of a healthy diet.
E. People whose diets are in sugar are also more likely to develop heart disease and various periodontal conditions.
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:
In this problem, correct answer choice A is a prime example of a correct-and-often-hard-to-find Strengthen answer type. While many correct Strengthen answers help to "advance" the argument, or fill in a glaring hole in the argument, choice A here subtly removes a flaw that you may not have noticed when you first read the prompt.
That flaw is one of correlation vs. causation: you know from the prompt that diets high in sugar and the development of type 2 diabetes occur more frequently together. But the conclusion treats it as a causal relationship (sugar --> diabetes) - what if, instead, they're just correlated? What if people genetically predisposed to type 2 diabetes are also predisposed to having more of a sweet tooth, so they eat more candy and drink more soda than the average person, but it's the genetics that lead to diabetes, not the sugar?
Choice A rules that correlation option out, making it much more likely that reducing sugar intake can help reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Among the incorrect answer choices:
B isn't relevant, as the argument doesn't suggest reducing some some sugar foods and not others. Since the conclusion doesn't split sugar intake in to smaller categories, this premise wouldn't help.
C is similar: it splits types of sugar consumption into smaller groups, but that doesn't further the argument that reducing sugar in general can help reduce the risk of diabetes.
D goes a little too far beyond the scope of the conclusion, which is just a scientific prediction that reducing sugar would reduce the risk of diabetes. The conclusion does not say "people should eliminate sugar," in which case D would be more helpful ("and you can do that, because it's not a critical component of your diet"). With the conclusion as stated, it doesn't matter whether sugar is essential or not: the argument is specific to the link between sugar and diabetes, not more general to one's overall health or a recommendation of how people should structure their diets.
And E similarly goes beyond the scope of the argument - as the argument is specific not just to diabetes but to a specific type of diabetes (type 2), the link between sugar and other ailments is not relevant to the discussion of sugar and type 2 diabetes.
close
06 Oct 2023, 01:30
43%
(01:58)
wrong 
