Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and

Question

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.

Jamal responds to Sasha by doing which of the following?

A. Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors
B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion
C. Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it
D. Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution
E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were

CR30370.01

GMATIntensive · Accepted Answer

The Story     
 Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats.  - Sasha makes a claim (“must be healthy” clearly indicates a claim) that following a diet high in animal proteins and fats must be healthy.

Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet,  - This portion supports the claim made in the first statement (The way to read any passage is to connect every idea back to the previous ones. At every statement, you should ask yourself, “How is this connected with the context so far?”)

since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.  - This portion supports the idea mentioned in the initial part of the sentence. Since our prehistoric ancestors ate a lot of meat, Sasha claims, human beings evolved to thrive on such a diet. (Since human beings evolved to thrive on a diet of meat, a diet high in animal proteins and fats must be healthy.)

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.  - Jamal starts his statement with a ‘but’ that indicates he is going to oppose some aspect of Sasha’s statement. Jamal points out a difference between human beings today and our ancestors – the level of physical exertion. (How does that impact Sasha’s point? Sasha’s argument was that what worked for our ancestors should work for us. By pointing out a difference between our ancestors and us, Jamal indicates that what worked for them may not work for us).

Gist:  
Sasha claims that following a diet high in animal proteins and fats must be healthy since human beings evolved to thrive on such a diet. How can we say so? Since our prehistoric ancestors ate that diet. Jamal counters this line of reasoning by pointing out a difference between human beings today and our ancestors.

The Gap     
The one glaring gap in Sasha’s argument that can be exploited in multiple ways is that she assumed that what worked for our ancestors would work for us. What if there are differences between us and our ancestors such that what worked for them may not work for us? (Jamal indicates just this.)

Another gap in Sasha’s argument is that she assumes that just because our ancestors ate that diet, it was healthy for them. It is entirely possible that our ancestors ate a lot of meat probably because they didn’t have an option, not because it was healthy for them. If meat was not even healthy for our ancestors, Sasha’s argument would be junk.

The Goal     
We have to find an option that tells us the way in which Jamal responds to Sasha. We have already discussed that Jamal points out a difference between us and our ancestors and thereby suggests that Sasha’s line of reasoning is not entirely correct.

The Evaluation     
 A. Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors 
  Incorrect  . Jamal never says or suggests that our prehistoric ancestors did not eat a lot of meat.

B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion 
  Correct  . We think the understanding of this option hinges primarily on the understanding of the word ‘qualify’. According to Oxford, the meaning of ‘qualify’ is  ‘make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to’.  So, if you say that “XYZ is the best country”, qualifying your statement would mean adding exceptions or restrictions to this statement. A few examples of qualifying this statement would be: “XYZ is the best in terms of educational standards”, “XYZ is the best if we do not include Switzerland and Poland in our consideration”, or “XYZ is the best except in October and November”.

Now coming back to the option, is Jamal bringing some information that suggests that Sasha should add reservations to or exceptions to her main conclusion that it must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats? The answer is yes. Sasha should add a reservation by stating something like: following a diet high in animal proteins and fats must be healthy, except probably for people who work much less than our ancestors.

C. Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it 
  Incorrect  . Jamal doesn’t support Sasha’s claim at all.

D. Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution 
  Incorrect  . The assumption Sasha makes about our prehistoric ancestors is that the diet they ate was healthy for them, and the conclusion that Sasha makes about human evolution is that humans evolved to thrive on a diet high on animal proteins and fats. However, Jamal never questions the link between this assumption and this or any other conclusion. Jamal presents information on how humans ‘today’ differ from our prehistoric ancestors. He doesn’t at all talk about human evolution.

Questioning the link between this assumption and this conclusion would be suggesting that even though the ancestors ate such a diet, humans may not have evolved to thrive on such a diet.

In addition, this option mentions “permits any conclusions”, suggesting that Jamal ruled out drawing ‘any’ conclusion from Sasha’s assumption about prehistoric ancestors. Jamal does not do this.

E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were 
  Incorrect  . If I say that X is much less physically active than Y, then indeed I’m expressing a doubt whether X and Y are equally healthy. So, if we read Jamal’s statement in isolation, he does seem to doubt whether human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were. However, the question asks us to find the way in which Jamal responds to Sasha. If Jamal suggests that human beings today are not as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were by talking about differences in physical activity, how will that impact Sasha’s argument? It will not. Thus, Jamal’s statement is not meant to point towards differences in the health between human beings today and our prehistoric ancestors. It is meant to suggest a potential link between physical activity and diet, and how a change in one might impact the other.

Additional Notes     
We regularly come across people who have trouble with questions, like this one, that are based on conversation. The primary difference between these conversation based questions and regular argument questions is that a regular argument generally has a unidirectional flow (a conclusion supported by some premises). On the other hand, these conversation based questions typically involve one person making the argument and then another person challenging that argument. Thus, reasoning exists both in favor and against a certain point. The challenge therefore becomes two-fold: to understand how the conclusion is supported and to understand how the conclusion (and its reasoning) is challenged.

If you face issues in these questions, we recommend two things:
 
 Slow yourself down. First understand the reasoning given to support a point before reading the other person’s point of view. If you don’t have a good hold on the original reasoning, you’ll be more confused after reading a counterpoint to that.
If the second person is countering the first person, read the second person’s point as if you are reading a correct weakener option. Try to understand ‘what’ aspect it weakens and ‘how’.

The way Sasha builds her argument is another common construction. She builds her argument one statement on top of another.

Since our ancestors ate large amounts of meat, therefore humans evolved to thrive on such a diet.
Since humans evolved to thrive on such a diet, it must be healthy to follow such a diet.

The same argument can be presented in multiple directions. 2 common structures:

A therefore B (sub-conclusion)
B therefore C (main conclusion)

C (main conclusion) since B
B (sub-conclusion) since A

If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

LoneSurvivor · Answer

+1 B

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.

Argument Analysis

So Sasha is proposing that It must be healthy to eat Proteins as our Prehistoric Ancestors did so,

Now Jamal is saying Sasha could be right but She is missing one crucial point that earlier Human used to extend themselves extensively which is not the Case now in modern era.

Jamal responds to Sasha by doing which of the following?

A. Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors

Jamal is not exactly refuting her statement Jamal is pointing out something which Sasha is missing in her analysis

B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion

This is exactly matches with the Two arguments. Jamal is providing new pieces of Information which Sasha is missing.

C. Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it

Jamal is not supporting Sasha's conclusion

D. Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution

Jamal doesn't talk about Human Evaluation at all.

E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were
  Question is about whether Human should eat meat heavily. Doubt is not about whether our ancestors were more healthy

Skywalker18 · Answer

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.

Jamal responds to Sasha by doing which of the following?

A. Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors- incorrect, Jamal is not refuting Sasha's statement about the prehistoric ancestors of humans
B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion- Correct, Jamal adds new information that qualifies Sasha's claim. It would be healthy for humans of today to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats ONLY IF the humans of today engage in as much physical activity as their ancestors did.
C. Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it - incorrect, Jamal cities additional evidence but he does not indirectly support her conclusion. Also, Jamal qualifies Sasha's arugment and does not broaden it.
D. Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution - irrelevant, human evolution is out of scope
E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were- incorrect, Jamal states that compared to their ancestors, humans of today are much less physically active.

Answer B

gmatt1476 · Answer

Official Explanation

Argument Construction

Sasha argues that, because our prehistoric ancestors consumed large amounts of meat, humans must have evolved to thrive on a diet of animal proteins and fats. She concludes from this that it must be good for us to consume such a diet.

Jamal responds by pointing out that our ancestors exerted themselves much more than we do, primarily to catch this food.

This question asks for the best characterization, among the answer choices, of Jamal's response.

A. Jamal implicitly accepts Sasha's statement that our prehistoric ancestors consumed large amounts of meat. Therefore, Jamal does not refute this statement made by Sasha.

B. Correct. Jamal's response indicates that our prehistoric ancestors were far more active than we are. This suggests not that Sasha is incorrect in her statement, but that her conclusion would benefit from this qualification: a diet high in animal protein and fat is healthy when one engages in intense physical activity at a level that is higher than what is normal for modern human beings.

C. Jamal's response suggests that Sasha make her conclusion more restrictive rather than more broad.

D. Jamal suggests a qualification of Sasha's argument based on the behavior of prehistoric human beings versus modern human beings. This in no way suggests that her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors tells us anything about evolution.

E. Jamal does not question whether most modern human beings are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors. However, he does question whether a diet high in animal proteins and fats is healthy without adjusting one's level of intense physical activity.

The correct answer is B.

OjhaShishir · Answer

Thanks, I had initially chosen option D, but after reading your explanation, it's clear why D is not correct.

ArupRS · Answer

what does it mean by - "she should qualify her main conclusion" in option B?

Cellchat · Answer

Let's crack to it, shall we.

It's either B or E.

B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion 
 Correct.  Don't get stumped by the word 'qualify'. It simply means to add a condition to something. Example: I'm the best in the world at long jump... when I'm at my peak strength. Jamal highlights evidence that adds a condition to Sasha's conclusion - simply that it must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. This argument is true, on the condition that people are as physically active as our ancestors, otherwise it is not.

E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were 
 Incorrect.  If we read Jamal’s statement by itself, it doubts whether human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were. This is a classic trap for this type of question... Basically restating the content in the statement. Cool but why restate something we already know?  The question asks us to find the way in which Jamal responds to Sasha.  This requires a deeper analysis, which is not going on in E.

AdiBir · Answer

Sasha  says something(following a protein rich diet having lots of meat is healthy) citing past(prehistoric ancestors) evidence.
 Jamal  suggests why the logic she uses to support her argument might not be valid in current scenario.(By saying that they also used to exert themselves physically)
Now coming to the options:
 A) He doesn't refute her statement. He adds some more detail to it.   Incorrect  
 B)  Qualify here means trying to limit. He adds the information about physical exertion in order to limit the scope of the conclusion. Because they were physically more active, it was healthy for them to eat high protein diet.So he limits her conclusion by adding this information.   Correct  
 C) The evidence provided by him does just the opposite of what this option says.   Incorrect  
 D) He doesn't question her assumption.   Incorrect  
 E) He does say that humans today are less physically active than their prehistoric ancestors but he makes no comments about their health.   Incorrect

saby1410 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja  
please explain option E i didn't get why it's wrong

KarishmaB · Answer

Sasha: Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on animal derived diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.
It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats.

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.

Jamal gives some new information for her consider. He does not challenge her premises. He brings in information which should make her re-consider her conclusion.

A. Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors

He does not refute her statement.

B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion

Correct. He brings in a piece of info to suggest that she should qualify (modify or limit) her main conclusion. He is saying that most humans are much less physically active, so she could modify her conclusion to "Animal based diet would be healthy for humans who are as physically active as our ancestors"

C. Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it

His info does not support her conclusion.

D. Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution

He doesn't question whether old data is relevant for conclusions today. He gives information on how things are different today so modifications may be needed to applicability of old data.

E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were

He says that humans today are not as physically active. Whether they are as healthy or not is not discussed. 
The point of discussion is whether animal base diet is healthy or not.

Answer (B)

peanuts · Answer

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.

Jamal responds to Sasha by doing which of the following?

Sasha claim that ancestor ate meat, so we modern people also should follow that diet. Jamal brought a new piece of information that people now are much less physically active, so what applies to ancestor may not apply to modern people

A. Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors  No claim about ancestor is made by Jamal 
B. Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion  Yes. new piece of info is introduced. Qualify means that Sasha should reduce the claim to a reasonable level 
C. Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it  No, the new evidence suggest Sasha to narrow her conclusion down 
D. Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution  No human evolution is of interest in this question 
E. Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were  no comparison is made regarding the healthiness of ancestors and modern people

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  MartyTargetTestPrep  - how is Sasha's argument structured  specifically.

Is it  scenario # 1  in my picture below or  scenario # 2  or perhaps something completely  different ?

Thank you

jabhatta2 · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep  - If it is scenario # 1 below -- I dont see how the premise (in green)   supports   the intermediate conclusion (in purple) in any meaningfull way.

Because my ancestors ate lot of meats   -->  Human beings evolved to thrive on such a diet   ?  The sequence doesnt make sense

If anything, it should be the other way around

i) First your body evolves to be able to thrive on much quantities of meat  
ii) Then only you start eating LOTS of meat

(Analogy : Because Humans hunt at night --> Human eyes evolved to be able to see at night)

The sequence in my analogy is backwards right ?  FIRST  my eyes first have to evolve to give me night vision. Then only will I start hunting at night

Reason : I wont hunt at night  first  if my eyes  ALREADY   dont have night vision.

Analogously, no human will have LARGE amounts of meat UNLESS his/her body   first    has the capability to thrive on large amounts of meat to begin with.

Thoughts on the  backward  sequence of events specifically between  green premise  and the  purple intermediate conclusion  ?

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - Regarding (E) - Most people are using a 'technicality' to get rid of (e) - most people are saying " healthy " is not the same thing as " Less phyiscally active "

So if  E - variant  had said this

Would (E- variant) be accurate ?

I dont think so because (E-variant) ceratinly re-inforces what Jamal said.

But i think we need a "Description" of what Jamal's response does to Sasha's claim. So things like 
- Jamal's response  strengthens  Sasha's claim
- Jamal's response  weakens  Sasha's claim 
- Jamal's response  suggests MORE studying  has to be done in order to proove Sasha's claim 
- Jamal's response suggests Sasha's claim  will no longer be active  in 2050
.....

(E-variant) is not a "description" of what Jamal's response does to Sasha's claim - (e-variant) is just a repitition of Jamal's statement - i think even (E-variant) is wrong

Thoughts ?

avigutman · Answer

Yes, I think what you're seeing with e-variant,  jabhatta2 , is that it doesn't really work for a question stem asking Instead, e-variant is more or less quoting the response.
Additionally, I would argue that Jamal isn't  expressing doubt about whether  most human beings today are as physically active as our prehistoric ancestors were. Rather, Jamal is  asserting that  most human beings today are as physically active as our prehistoric ancestors were.

avigutman · Answer

Hi  jabhatta2 , this is a super interesting question. I think you're looking at evolution as if it's a process that takes place instantaneously: yesterday I had no night vision, and overnight I've evolved such that now I do have night vision.
Evolution, of course, doesn't work that way. It's a process that takes place over millions of years and countless generations, whereby genetic mutations that have an evolutionary advantage take hold and over time the prior genes die out.
So, how to think about the sentence 
Does it make sense to say that we evolved to eat large amounts of meat  because  our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat? Yes, it does. Our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat: some of them were not capable of thriving on meat, and they died before they were able to procreate. Others, with some genetic mutations, did thrive on meat, so over time, and over countless generations, we are now all evolved to thrive on large amounts of meat.
Similarly, with your analogy:
 
Okay, let's imagine that once upon a time, human eyes weren't very good at seeing at night. Nevertheless, humans started hunting at night (why? maybe the climate made it impossible for them to hunt during the day). The humans who were completely blind in the dark didn't have much success with hunting, so they died prior to procreating. The humans who weren't quite as blind had an evolutionary advantage. Over tens of thousands of years, and thousands of generations, humans evolved to be able to see at night.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Hi jabhatta2.

Your first structure is the correct one.

We can see that it is because of the use of "since" in "Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat."

"Since" communicates that the support for "Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet," is "our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat."

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

The argument doesn't really involve a sequence of events.

The point made is that THE FACT THAT "our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat" indicates that "Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet."

In other words, the fact that ancestors did eat so much meat indicates that they were capable of thriving on such a diet.

That said, the construction of the argument isn't 100 percent clear. So, it's possible that some kind of sequence of events is implied. So, the question isn't written in an ideal way.

Ale300503 · Answer

I feel that questions like these are very unfair for non-native speakers.
I find the verbal section very easy in its logic, even if sometimes it can be tricky.
But that should be its main goal, not to test your english level!!!! We have IELTS for that!!
Here, and in 90% of the questions i get wrong, the reason of my mistake is that i didn't understand the meaning of certain words in the answers, which changed the perceived meaning completely.
In my opinion the verbal section should be oppressed from GMAT.
I can't imagine how easy the section would be if it was in my language.
You native speakers are SO lucky

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and

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

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and

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