The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstre

Question

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.
Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends.

(A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.

(B) The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.

(C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

(D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet change can.

(E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

ChiranjeevSingh · Accepted Answer

Understanding the Passage

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person’s lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second.

↑ level of certain vitamins and minerals, ↑ lung function

How did we measure lung function?

By the amount of air expelled by the person in one second.

(I expect that the more air a person expels, the better we call his lung function. I notice that we are given a correlation in this statement. Generally, after giving such a correlation, the author presents causation. Let’s see what happens)

The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers.

This statement compares smokers and nonsmokers. On what basis? Based on their lung function.

Lung function (smokers) << Lung function (nonsmokers)

Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of food that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

“Therefore” indicates the conclusion. The author concludes that smokers can improve their lung function by increasing their intake of foods rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

(As I expected, the author has jumped from correlation to causation. The author assumes that the better lung function was a result of a higher level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream. That’s why the author has concluded that smokers can improve their lung function by increasing their intake of such vitamins and minerals)

The GIST

Since
 
1. There is a positive correlation between the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream and the lung function
2. Smokers have a significantly worse lung function than nonsmokers

(Thus) Smokers can improve their lung function by increasing their intake of food that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals

The Gaps

Since this is correlation-causation argument (jumps from correlation to causation), it has the below two standard gaps:

1. Reverse causation: It is possible that better lung function leads to better absorption of those vitamins and minerals. If so, this could be the reason for the correlation given in the first statement. In such a case, we won’t be able to argue that lung function can be improved by taking more such minerals and vitamins.
2. Third factor: It is possible that exercise led to both better lung function and higher levels of vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream. In this case too, we won’t have a reason to arrive at the conclusion.

There could be another gap that while these vitamins and minerals help improve lung function in general, they won’t help smokers since smoking doesn’t let these nutrients function properly.

There can, of course, be more gaps.

The Evaluation

(A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.

Incorrect.   This option strengthens the argument but is not an assumption.

The option says that smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have nutrient-rich diets. If so, I have a reason to believe that increasing the nutrients in their diets will help them. Thus, I have more belief in the conclusion. (If smokers were already taking nutrient-rich diets, I’d have less reason to believe that increasing the nutrients in their diets would improve their lung function.)

Given that the option strengthens the argument, the next step is to evaluate whether the negation of the option breaks down the argument.

Negation: Smokers are as likely as or more likely than nonsmokers to have nutrient-rich diets.

The negation weakens the argument since it indicates that smokers already have enough nutrients and thus more nutrients may not help them.

However, the negation doesn’t break down the argument since more nutrients may still improve smokers’ lung function, given the correlation mentioned in the first statement of the passage. The negation doesn’t make the argument baseless.

(B) The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.

Incorrect.   This option strongly strengthens the argument but is not an assumption.

The option very strongly indicates that increasing the nutrient intake will improve the lung function of smokers.

How does it indicate so?

We know from the passage that the lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Now, this option tells us that the lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.

Thus, it seems that diets rich in those vitamins and minerals have the potential to make the lung function of smokers even better than that of nonsmokers.

Negation: The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally the same as or worse than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.

This option is a mild weakener; it doesn’t even come close to breaking down the argument.

Even if the lung function of smokers with nutrient-rich diets is worse than the lung function of the nonsmokers with comparable diets, we still have a reason to believe in the reasoning in the argument. Increasing the nutrient-intake may still improve the lung function of smokers; it may not make their lung function at the same level as the lungs of nonsmokers; however, as long as their lung function improves, the argument holds.

(C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

Incorrect.   This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

Whether people with nutrient-deficient diets have other health problems or not has no relevance to the argument. The argument is concerned ONLY with lung function.

(D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet change can.

Incorrect.   This option strengthens the argument but is not an assumption.

This option says that diet change can typically improve lung function as much as or more than stopping smoking will.

Thus, this option suggests that diet change is an effective way for smokers to improve lung function. Therefore, this option strengthens the argument.

Negation: Stopping smoking will typically improve lung function more than any diet change can.

The negation says that stopping smoking is going to help the smokers more than any diet change can w.r.t. improving lung function.

While the negation weakens the argument mildly, it doesn’t come close to breaking down the argument since even if diet change is less effective than stopping smoking, diet change can still help a lot. Thus, the argument still is very believable.

(E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

Correct.    This option strengthens the argument and, on negation, breaks down the argument (i.e., makes the argument baseless)

The option says that smoking does not introduce certain chemicals into the body. Which chemicals?

Chemicals that stop the helpful nutrients from entering the bloodstream.

If these chemicals are not introduced by smoking, we have a reason to believe that increasing the nutrient-intake will help the smokers since these nutrients will be able to enter the bloodstream and thus help the lung function.

This option, thus, strengthens the argument.

Negation: Smoking introduces into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

If smokers have chemicals in their bodies that do not allow the nutrients to enter the bloodstream, then even if they increase their nutrient intake, they’ll not have those nutrients in their bloodstream. If they don’t have these nutrients in their bloodstream, we don’t have a reason to expect better lung function.

Thus, in this case, the argument becomes baseless, i.e., we don’t have a logical reason to argue for the conclusion on the basis of the premises.

Let’s take a moment to understand how the argument becomes baseless in the presence of the negation of this option.

Premise: The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person’s lung function.

Negation: Smoking introduces into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

Conclusion: one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Given that nutrients in smokers’ bodies cannot reach the bloodstream, how can we expect that increasing their nutrient intake will help their lung function? What we believe is that higher level of nutrients in the bloodstream helps the lung function. If the nutrients don’t even enter the bloodstream, we don’t have a reason to expect improved lung function. Not having a reason to believe in the conclusion is what we call an argument’s becoming baseless.

Zarrolou · Answer

Applying the negation technique:

(C)People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function
 (C-1)People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals  do not  typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function

(E)Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream. 
 (E)Smoking does  not  introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

We have to evaluate their impact on this:
 Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of food that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Even if those people have other healths problems (C), they could still  improve their lung function  by increasing the intake of foods rich in vitamins.
The argument holds.
If smoking introduces chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream, increasing the intake of such food will not help because the helpful substances will be destroyed by the effect of smoking.

GMATPill · Answer

(A) may help explain observations made in the passage (supporting leg) however, they are not related to the argument.

Observations made:
1) good vitamin levels = good lungs
2) smokers = bad lungs
3) non-smokers = good lungs

Using gmatpill linked chains framework #2, you'll make the connection that non-smokers have good vitamin levels and smokers have bad vitamin levels.

What (A) is doing is saying that smokers have bad diets (not bad vitamin levels) - so it's making a stretch...it's assuming that diet and vitamin levels are closely connected. So (A) is making a stretched statement using an assumption...

But we're trying to find an assumption that supports ANOTHER stretched statement...the last sentence in the passage.

Think about it, what do "vitamin levels" have to do with "diet"? The argument is about a specific action...increasing diet of these vitamins. Does that improve lung function? Is there a good connection between "diet" and "vitamin levels in bloodstream"? Will a vitamin-high diet necessarily lead to vitamin high levels in bloodstream?

That's what we need to solve, supporting the passage's conclusion, not finding another conclusion in the answer choice.

Posted from my mobile device

NGGMAT · Answer

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second.
The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers.

Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

IMO E is correct. Possible contenders are A,B and E.But only E sets up the link between bloodstream and V&M.
A. Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.
B. The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.
C. People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.
>>Other HP r not concern here.
D. Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.
>>Other factors r not concerned here.
E. Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.
>>Hit the nail on the head. If V & M can't be passed into bloodstream whole conclusion fails.

shank001 · Answer

Argument says that smokers have to increase their intake of vitamins and minerals.
That means the current one is not sufficient
We are not concerned about what is the current diet level. We just want to prove that eating more vitamins will help smokers improve the lung function.

what if smoking blocks absorption into bloodstream. In this case, however much the person increases intake of vitamins, his lungs won't improve.
because the vitamins are never absorbed.
This destroys the argument.

Therefore, E is the correct answer choice. It says that smoking does not prevent vitamins from entering the bloodstream. So if the non-smokers increase their intake of vitamins then their lung function will improve.

VarunBhardwaj · Answer

E it is.
Fact 1: The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second.
 Vitamins and minerals in blood stream helps lungs to perform functions. 
Fact 2:  The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers.

Conclusion: one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.
 Smokers can improve lung function by intake of vitamins and minerals.

A. Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.
If true, This additional information strengthens the argument. Incorrect.
B. The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.
If true, This additional information strengthens the argument.As taking V&M will help the smoker to enhance their lung functions. Incorrect.
C. People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.
Not related to Smokers ,so, It is irrelevant.
D. Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.
This is out of scope.As it is introducing new way to enhance lung function.
E. Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.
What if smoking introduce body chemicals that prevent the V&M from entering blood stream? Then the conclusion will not stand true.hence, It is a necessary assumption for argument.correct.

JarvisR · Answer

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function , as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. 
The  lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers.

Clearly,  therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

IMO E is correct. Possible contenders are A,B and E.But only E sets up the link between bloodstream and V&M.
 A. Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.
B. The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.
C. People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.
>>Other HP r not concern here.
D. Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.
>>Other factors r not concerned here.
 E. Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.
>>Hit the nail on the head. If V & M can't be passed into bloodstream whole conclusion fails.

Mbawarrior01 · Answer

A. Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.   Out of Scope

B. The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.   The passage doesn't imply the improvement will be better.

C. People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.   Out of Scope

D. Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.   Does not relate to the conclusion

E. Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.
>>Hit the nail on the head. If V & M can't be passed into bloodstream whole conclusion fails.

IMO E.

HKD1710 · Answer

Premise:  Lung function is measured as amount of air expelled / second.
 
Premise:  Smoker’s lung function is worse. Non smokers have better lung function.

Conclusion:   Intake (food with vit & minral)  improve (lung function)

Defender assumptions answer choices can be one of these:

#1. No Intake - No Improvement
#2. Anything else apart from INTAKE OF food with vit & minral CANNOT -- improve lung function
#3. Improvement does not cause intake of vit& minral

Choice E matches #1. Hence is the correct answer.

megha_2709 · Answer

I dont understand why D isnt correct. isnt D providing alternate cause for better lung function , assumption sometimes
play defender role , eliminating the alt cause for effect and negating it is having direct effect on conclusion
Quiting smoking is better than any diet . Why isnt this is correct ?if someone can please help

Abhishek009 · Answer

Check the stimulus carefully -

The stimulus talks about improving lung function of smokers...

If we take (D) as an assumption then we are stressing -

One way for smokers to improve their lung function is - Quting to smoke...

Back to the Stimulus -

If smokers quit smoking then the comparison between smokers lung function will not be feasible..

hence (D) is not a good option..

Feel free to revert in case of any doubt...

Skywalker18 · Answer

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.
Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

Type - assumption
Boil it down - smokers increase their intake of vitamin & mineral foods --> lung function will improve 
- But will intake of such food increase the levels of vitamin & mineral in the bloodstream

(A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals. - Irrelevant - mild strengthener
(B) The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets. - Irrelevant
(C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function. - Out of scope - other health problems is beyond scope
(D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can. - Irrelevant 
(E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream. - Correct

Answer E

arvind910619 · Answer

The answer is E 
B and C can be rejected outright because these two are out of scope .
D is talks about something else entirely stopping smoking we are not concerned by that .
A if this is the case then it strengthens the argument as it tells us that if diets based on minerals and vitamins are consumed lungs will improve .
E is the assumption 
Negate this choice and the whole argument comes crushing down .

Sent from my ONE E1003 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

shobhitkh · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma , can you please explain why option D is wrong?

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that smokers can improve their lung function by increasing their consumption of vitamin/mineral rich foods.
This is based on the fact that the higher level of V and M found in the bloodstream the better the lung functionality and smokers were found to have significantly worse lung functionality.
Lung functionality measured by amount of air expelled in one breath.

A - I incorrectly chose A. Even if smokers have the same level of intake of vitamin rich food as non-smokers, smokers may still have weaker lung functionality. 
Inserting this:
- Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals. Therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of food that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Its still a bit unclear how the increase in intake results in improved lung functionality and A actually inherently assumes that food consumption is the only way to improve vitamin/mineral blood count.

Negating this
Even smokers  are not  less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.
So there must be some other reason why the vitamin/ mineral blood count is lower.
This is where E does a good job of more clearly linking the premise and conclusion with specifics.

B is incorrect - it runs counter to the argument so how can it be assumed? 
C is the 'alternate plan/explanation' - we are only concerned with proving whether the argument is correct and we do this through a validated assumption. 
D is incorrect - for similar reasons to C

KarishmaB · Answer

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function.
The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers.

Conclusion: Smokers can improve their lung function by increasing their intake of food that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

The argument tells us that there is a correlation between the level of vitamins and lung function.
It also tells us that lung function of smokers is worse than that of non smokers.

It concludes that low lung function smokers can improve their lung function by taking vitamins. It assumes a causation between vitamins and lung function. It assumes that smoking is not the cause of both low lung function and low vitamin level. The argument only gives us a correlation between vitamins and lung function. It is possible that smoking causes both low lung function and low vitamin level and that is why we see the correlation between them. But our conclusion assumes that that is not the case. It assumes that vitamins increase lung function.

(A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.

This shows that a diet rich in vitamins could actually benefit. Because smokers have low levels of vitamins, they have lower lung function. So improving diet could help. This is not the assumption the argument makes.

(B) The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.

This says that with same diet, smokers have better lung function. Makes no sense with our argument.

(C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

Irrelevant to our argument.

(D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet change can.

The argument does not talk about whether stopping smoking will improve lung function. It mentions that one way for smokers (people with low lung function) to improve lung function is increasing vitamin level. It is certainly possible that stopping smoking is the best way to improve lung function. Our argument does not care about it. It cares about whether increasing vitamin level is one way.

(E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

Correct. This is an assumption the argument makes. Basically this says that smoking is not the causation factor of low vitamin level. If smoking does introduce chemicals that prevent absorption of vitamins, then smokers taking vitamins may be useless. Anyway the vitamins will not get absorbed.

Answer (E)

dcummins · Answer

Its important to note that A doesn't bridge the gap between consumption and nutrient uptake. This isn't general knowledge, but if it is bridged in an answer choice then it would make more sense to go with that AC.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstre

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

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstre

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