Last visit was: 09 Jul 2025, 01:59 It is currently 09 Jul 2025, 01:59
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 102,604
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 97,452
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,604
Kudos: 739,671
 [46]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
41
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
VeritasPrepBrian
User avatar
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Last visit: 02 Mar 2022
Posts: 416
Own Kudos:
3,162
 [20]
Given Kudos: 63
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 416
Kudos: 3,162
 [20]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
VeritasPrepBrian
User avatar
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Last visit: 02 Mar 2022
Posts: 416
Own Kudos:
3,162
 [10]
Given Kudos: 63
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 416
Kudos: 3,162
 [10]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
ErikLewe
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Last visit: 15 Nov 2019
Posts: 54
Own Kudos:
56
 [2]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Sweden
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Wharton '22
Schools: Wharton '22
Posts: 54
Kudos: 56
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. So individuals who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.

Which one of the following, if true, most weaken the argument?


(A) The differences in average fat intake between countries are often due to the varying makeup of traditional diets.

(B) The countries with a high average fat intake tend to be among the wealthiest in the world.

(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.

(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.

(E) An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.
Though many answer choices try to give the causal relationship between cancer and fat intake on a national lever, only C completely weakens the argument that national fat intake is causal to the incidence of cancer on a individual level.
User avatar
ShankSouljaBoi
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 622
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4,090
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
avatar
mittalmohit1995
Joined: 16 Jan 2018
Last visit: 06 Jan 2020
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 9
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi harsh ,

I think you are talking about countries ... instead of country ..right ?

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
vermaharsh147
Joined: 15 Dec 2018
Last visit: 09 Jun 2021
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 17
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mittalmohit1995
Hi harsh ,

I think you are talking about countries ... instead of country ..right ?

Posted from my mobile device

Hello Mohit,

Intially I was confused between countries and country. But all the options contain contries so that is not an issue. Right now my concern is how can we relate high fat intake to environmental pollution, as stated in option D. I mean if C is a Farfetched option then D also to seems to be.
User avatar
ShankSouljaBoi
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 622
Own Kudos:
590
 [2]
Given Kudos: 4,090
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vermaharsh147
mittalmohit1995
Hi harsh ,

I think you are talking about countries ... instead of country ..right ?

Posted from my mobile device

Hello Mohit,

Intially I was confused between countries and country. But all the options contain contries so that is not an issue. Right now my concern is how can we relate high fat intake to environmental pollution, as stated in option D. I mean if C is a Farfetched option then D also to seems to be.


A weakener of a causal claim can be that Z caused X and Y both. D states just that.
Ask yourself, what if pollution lead to cancer and cancer led to high fat diet consumption.

D is a weakener.
User avatar
ShankSouljaBoi
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 622
Own Kudos:
590
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4,090
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mittalmohit1995
Hi harsh ,

I think you are talking about countries ... instead of country ..right ?

Posted from my mobile device


A country is not specific. Had it been the country, then it would have been a specific case.

I hope this clarifies your issue
User avatar
Mizar18
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Last visit: 06 Jun 2025
Posts: 177
Own Kudos:
264
 [4]
Given Kudos: 130
Location: Peru
Posts: 177
Kudos: 264
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(C) vs (D)

(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.

This one just states an statistic about countries with a low average fat intake, does that weaken the argument? Although this is a curious fact, it remains intact the cause effect between fat intake and risk of cancer, Incorrect.

(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.

This one makes us doubt about the causality between fat intake and risk of cancer, so it is the winner. Remember that at weaken questions, you do not need to "destroy" the argument, but just need to debilitate it. Correct
User avatar
Sahil237
Joined: 30 Aug 2024
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ShankSouljaBoi
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
option C says cancer is a prominent cause of death lets suppose / assume a country having population 100 . Now lets say in a year their were 10 deaths and 8 of them were due to cancer now this makes the cancer a prominent cause but this data only shows deaths not occurrence of cancer in that country.
User avatar
Sahil237
Joined: 30 Aug 2024
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ShankSouljaBoi
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
option C says cancer is a prominent cause of death lets suppose / assume a country having population 100 . Now lets say in a year their were 10 deaths and 8 of them were due to cancer now this makes the cancer a prominent cause but this data only shows deaths not occurrence of cancer in that country. you can compare with a country with 2 deaths or 0 but have 60 occurrences of cancer in same population.
User avatar
agrasan
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 9 July 2025
Posts: 285
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4,175
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 285
Kudos: 18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi experts GMATNinja KarishmaB DmitryFarber IanStewart

I wanted to confirm my reasoning on option C

(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake

Even though "incidence" means occurrence/rate/frequency (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /incidence), the conclusion talks about "risk of cancer", and option C talks about cancer deaths which is a shift in scope, hence, no impact on the conclusion.

Please let me know if I am going wrong somewhere.
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,140
Own Kudos:
10,595
 [2]
Given Kudos: 97
 Q51  V47
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,140
Kudos: 10,595
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan
I wanted to confirm my reasoning on option C

Even though "incidence" means occurrence/rate/frequency (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /incidence), the conclusion talks about "risk of cancer", and option C talks about cancer deaths which is a shift in scope, hence, no impact on the conclusion.

Someone earlier in the thread wrote that this is an official GMAT problem, and it is not -- it's a very old LSAT problem. And it's a low-quality problem at that. For one thing, half the stem is redundant (naturally if cancer incidence is higher as fat intake goes up, cancer incidence is lower as fat intake goes down -- there's no need to say that), and answer C uses the word "prominent" in a bizarre way.

I'm not really sure why answer C would be tempting here. Premises in CR questions are premises. We know that as fat intake goes up, cancer incidence goes up. Even if C said Cancer is very common in countries with low fat intake, we would absolutely know from the stem that cancer is even more common in countries with high fat intake. Premises cannot be false. But as you point out, answer C does not even talk about cancer incidence. It talks about cancer deaths, and the argument has nothing to do with cancer deaths, so answer C does nothing to weaken the conclusion.

This is a classic correlation/causation argument, and we can weaken any argument like this by finding an alternate cause. Answers B and D are the only contenders, because they both suggest that high fat intake countries are different from low fat intake countries in meaningful ways other than fat intake. So there might be another explanation for the correlation described in the stem. I would happily choose answer B here if answer D was not there, but D is better because pollution could directly cause cancer, while the wealth mentioned in answer B cannot (though it might be true in wealthy countries that people are exposed to more risks, e.g. to more radiation from technology, say, which is why B is the clear second-best answer here).
User avatar
speedemon
Joined: 29 Mar 2024
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 5
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I simply eliminated C here because its talking about dying from cancer where as the passage is only talking about the occurence of cancer in the respective countries. Since we are not given the percentage of population that is not dying from cancer, the arguement becomes vague.

Hence, answer D becomes the correct choice.

Please let me know if my reasoning is correct or not?
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts