|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
05 Mar 2024, 21:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
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. - Notice "right after." Is it establishing any causal connection that "wheat germ and garlic" caused her to move to move easily? No. It's just saying "right after" she started it. Just like, right after dinner, I went for a walk. It's just a correlation.
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. - look at "when." Is it saying that "wheat germ and garlic" caused his brother's condition to worsen? No. Just correlation. Then it introduces a contrast by "but," saying that when he stopped eating Vegetables in the nightshade family, he felt better. Did the argument say that eating vegetables in the nightshade family caused him to have a better condition? No. It's just a correlation.
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?
Scope of the argument - We need to why both had a different experience with the same diet. Which diet? Wheat germ and garlic. Is our scope anyway connected to "eating Vegetables in the nightshade family," No. So, anything talking about "eating Vegetables in the nightshade family" will be out of scope.
Option Eliminaiton. -
A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. - worsens the paradox.
B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. - Worsens the paradox. Becasue if there are compounds that can lessen the symptoms, so he should have felt better? Isnt it? But he is not. So opposite.
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. - oh, ok. So it's just a coincidence. This is okay because the argument doesn't talk about any causal connection anyway.
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. - "Vegetables in the nightshade family" are out of scope.
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. - We don't know anything about their relationship. Out of scope.
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. - Notice "right after." Is it establishing any causal connection that "wheat germ and garlic" caused her to move to move easily? No. It's just saying "right after" she started it. Just like, right after dinner, I went for a walk. It's just a correlation.
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. - look at "when." Is it saying that "wheat germ and garlic" caused his brother's condition to worsen? No. Just correlation. Then it introduces a contrast by "but," saying that when he stopped eating Vegetables in the nightshade family, he felt better. Did the argument say that eating vegetables in the nightshade family caused him to have a better condition? No. It's just a correlation.
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?
Scope of the argument - We need to why both had a different experience with the same diet. Which diet? Wheat germ and garlic. Is our scope anyway connected to "eating Vegetables in the nightshade family," No. So, anything talking about "eating Vegetables in the nightshade family" will be out of scope.
Option Eliminaiton. -
A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. - worsens the paradox.
B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. - Worsens the paradox. Becasue if there are compounds that can lessen the symptoms, so he should have felt better? Isnt it? But he is not. So opposite.
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. - oh, ok. So it's just a coincidence. This is okay because the argument doesn't talk about any causal connection anyway.
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. - "Vegetables in the nightshade family" are out of scope.
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. - We don't know anything about their relationship. Out of scope.
19 Mar 2026, 03:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is resolve the paradox question type. We have to find something that addresses both the statements. If you look at the question, it requires some explanation for both the individual's contrasting experience with the diet.
Statement D while lucrative, it only address Pat's pov. It doesn't address Sammy's pov. Thus Statement D is not sufficient. Statement C on the other hand while less lucrative, it is the only statement that helps resolve the paradox by considering Arthiritis itself as a disease the symptoms of which can fluctuate overtime.
Statement D while lucrative, it only address Pat's pov. It doesn't address Sammy's pov. Thus Statement D is not sufficient. Statement C on the other hand while less lucrative, it is the only statement that helps resolve the paradox by considering Arthiritis itself as a disease the symptoms of which can fluctuate overtime.
bhanu29
Joined: 02 Oct 2024
Last visit: 30 Apr 2026
Posts: 363
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 263
Location: India
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79 
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
GPA: 9.11
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Products:
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
Posts: 363
Kudos:
276
24 Mar 2026, 20:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Resolve the paradox type question.
A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
This doesn't explain why Pat's brother's condition worsened after change in diet. Eliminate.
B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.
Irrelevant, because we see both had healing effects. Eliminate.
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.
Bingo! This can reasonably explain the different methods but alleviating result. Keep.
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.
This again has no impact, what about the first diet, why that helped? also Aunt never really tried second treatment. Eliminate.
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. Eliminate.
Correct Answer C
