Sammy: For my arthritis, I am going to try my aunt's diet: large amoun

Question

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.

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.

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?

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.

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.

(CR02829)

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

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.

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.

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?

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
 This does not give reasons on why Pat's brother had a different experience in which the symptoms got aggravated

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.
 This gives a bit of reason that both Sammy's aunty and Pat's brother should have had similar experiences

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.
  Now this gives us a reason why both had different experiences.when the improvement is not related to diet, both could have easily had different outcomes... Correct

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.
 Trap... We are not looking at the relationship between nightshade vegetables. We are looking at WHY the two person had different experience when they started with the diet

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.
 Out of scope

C

GMATNinja · Answer

generis is exactly right (as usual!), but I'll put this into different words in case it might be helpful.

Here's the exact language of the question: "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 ?" From this, we know to explain something about a diet that both Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother tried out. The only diet that fits the bill is "large amounts of wheat germ and garlic" (sounds delicious). When Sammy's aunt tried that diet, she had a positive result. When Pat's brother tried the same diet, he had a negative result. Pat's brother then went on to try a different diet: "he stopped eating vegetables in the nightshade family." But Sammy's aunt never tried this anti-nightshade diet, so this can't be the diet that the question is actually asking about. Overall, the question is really asking us what could explain the difference in how Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother reacted to eating large amounts of wheat germ and garlic.

Take another look at (D): (D) talks about the anti-nightshade diet -- the one that Sammy's aunt never tried. So, (D) can't possibly explain why Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother had different reactions to the wheat germ/garlic diet. For this reason, (D) is out. Now consider (C): Sammy's aunt ate the wheat germ/garlic diet and her arthritis got better. Pat's brother ate the same diet and his arthritis got worse. (C) tells us that these changes may have nothing to do with the diet change at all -- the symptoms of arthritis improve or worsen "without regard to diet." This explains the contrasting experiences with the same diet, because the change in symptoms could be completely unrelated to the change in diet. (C) is the correct answer. (Of course, the real correct answer is that a diet of bhindi masala, tacos al pastor, and shrimp shumai is much better than a diet of wheat germ and garlic.) I hope that helps!

GyMrAT · Answer

Question Type: Resolve the Paradox

Argument Analysis: Two contrasting remedial evidences are provided for the condition of arthritis. We have to find a reason that explains why the both can be true at the same time.

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. Incorrect. The key word here is "frequently", hence this may or may not be true in certain cases.
 
B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. - Incorrect. Does not explain the discrepancy, as removal of tomatoes & peppers has shown to lessen the arthritis
 
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. - Correct. If Arthritis by its nature itself is a condition that aggravates or alleviates, then diet is irrelevant.
 
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. Incorrect. The term, "in general" which is not all inclusive, hence may or may not be true in Pat's brothers case.
 
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. Incorrect. Out scope, we do not know whether they are related.

Answer C.

Thanks,
GyM

AlfredNguyen · Answer

I have a doubt on choice C as it says that arthritis gets worse overtime, however, we can infer from the stimulus that both Sammy’s aunt and Pat’s brother improved the condition sometimes, Pat’s brother even got worse at first, then improved at the same time he gave up on the vegetable, and that means choice C goes against the stimulus, hence it’s wrong. 
Can someone clarify this ? Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

GMATGuruNY · Answer

The portion in red mischaracterizes the meaning of the OA.
 from time to time  =  sometimes .
OA:  Arthritis is a chronic condition  whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet . 
The blue portion conveys the following:
 The symptoms of arthritis will SOMETIMES IMPROVE without regard to diet, and they will SOMETIMES WORSEN without regard to diet. 
This information explains why the aunt and the brother responded differently to the diet of wheat germ and garlic: whereas the aunt's symptoms IMPROVED without regard to this diet, the brother's symptoms WORSENED without regard to this diet.

C

jayarora · Answer

We need a reason to explain why Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother had different experiences with the same diet

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.  We are nowhere told that Sammy's aunt changed her diet more frequently when compared to Pat's brother. So we cannot cite this reason to explain the difference. Incorrect.  
 
B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. Then why did Pat's brother arthritis get worse on eating garlic? 
 
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. If diet has no role to play, it could explain the different experiences in Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother.  
 
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. But why did Pat's brother arthritis get worse in the first place when he had the same diet as Sammy's aunt? This does not explain the difference  
 
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. This fact is irrelevant to us as we do not know how closely related are Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother.

SSM700plus · Answer

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.

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.

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?

Question Type : RESOLVE THE PARADOX. .
 
A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
 This does not give reasons about the contrasting experience of Pat's brother and Sammy's aunt.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.
 This gives reason- Why Sammy's aunty and Pat's brother have similar behavior. But we need choice which explains why both have contrasting behavior? 
 
C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.
  This gives us a reason: why both had different experiences? It states that improvement or contrasting behavior is general behavior of chronic condition - symptoms improve and worsen from time to time but not because of diet. Correct
   
D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.
 This choice only provides results for avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family on men and women. But we don't have any information about how women behaved by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women 
 
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.
 Out of scope. Also it only provides detail about same experience not contrasting experience.

C is the Answer

aragonn · Answer

So clearly some thing is different in two instances. think on the lines that what is different in two times.

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms. ---- if this is true that pat's brother should also get relief when he started that diet.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers. --- then why two different results?

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet. --- Ok , I am skeptical about this choice. Although this is possible that two cases have nothing to do with diet.

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women. ---- i think avoiding vegetables is not our aim. even this one is true we will not get the answer of previous question. why two different effects of same diet.

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

C is best of the lot.

adkikani · Answer

GMATNinja pikolo2510 generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354 Can you validate my reasoning and PoE? Start with Q stem: Underlined portions suggest that I shall be handling some mystery, so let Sherlock Holmes get to task

Here is the crux of conversation: S is suffering from A, so he decides to follow cure by his Aunt that immediately after eating wheat and garlic, she got better P says that when his brother followed same diet, his condition worsened. He, in fact, has stopped consuming tomatoes and peppers, because of which he recovered. I would like to emphasize here that we are more dealing with change in diet than a change in gender since lots of students selected D The mystery is why one type of diet worked for one and not for another. Whether the diet change frequently brings the relief from A or ALWAYS helps to recover does not solve my mystery. This is an inference, not a solution to resolve the mystery. This is already known from the argument. I was honestly not able to select this as OA, since I am ACTUALLY dealing with change in diet from vegetables to grain and garlic. I moved on to reject others. Here is where incorrect gender comparison comes into pic. Hope I am correct in rejecting this. The closeness of relatives is outside the scope of the argument. How close was I eliminating PoE (out of 10)

for this question?

generis · Answer

9/10. Very good. "Hurt" is better than "not helped" to convey the issue more accurately. For those who might have had a hard time formulating the discrepancy: always look at the question again. Apparently GMAC decided to hit us upside the head with a two-by-four. (From the PROMPT): We have just been handed the general outline of the discrepancy. Generally, correct answers will contain missing information or a missing perspective. Beware of: -- distracting information -- information that ignores half of the conflict -- information that aggravates or intensifies the discrepancy or paradox 7/10 Asserted, not explained. WHY does this "frequently brings relief" not solve your mystery? I have to guess.

The brother is left out. He was hurt by wheat and garlic. In this case, "frequently any change brings relief" may or may not explain the aunt, but the phrase does not address the brother at all. "Addressing only one side" is a common answer trap. ELIMINATE This option is also a tame example of another very common trap answer, "Worsen the contradiction." (I say "tame" because the answer is qualified by "frequently" -- but the thrust is still to widen the disparity.) Take a look at "regardless of the nature of the change..." If ANY change should help frequently, then why did a change help one and not the other? Not answered. This option just made the discrepancy worse. It increased the likelihood that the brother should have been helped. If ANY (all) change frequently helps, then it is MORE likely that the brother should have been helped. Explaining why he was not helped just got harder. ELIMINATE 5/10 Careful. Your reasoning is off. This option is not an inference. If you believe this option to be an inference . . . The inference is not correct and certainly is not "already known."* It is not an inference. It is an assertion that Helpful Thing in garlic is also in the not-eaten nightshade vegetables. We are supposed to be bamboozled: "Aha! Helpful Thing in garlic is not so helpful because NOT eating it in nightshade vegetables helps the brother and the aunt is a weird case and . . ." RABBIT HOLE. Don't go there. Option B is an assertion that 1) cannot explain the brother's reaction to wheat; and 2) oddly makes the discrepancy worse. This answer arguably makes the discrepancy worse : " . . . compounds in G. . . that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis..." If garlic compounds CAN lessen the symptoms of arthritis; can help people generally as opposed to helping just the aunt (isolated example); now we have even more reason to wonder why the compounds made the brother worse. Also, option B does not explain the contradictory responses to wheat. The contradiction is not resolved for either substance. ELIMINATE 10/10. Smart strategy to avoid rejecting an option if not sure. MUCH IMPROVED on your part. Although you were too focused on details (certain foods), you did not discard the general option simply on the grounds that it did not include the details. 10/10 for that reason alone. This option is perfect. Symptoms come and go "without regard to diet." That is, diet has no connection to arthritis. Flare-ups and improvements are common. If you have arthritis, what you eat (or do not eat) has no effect on your arthritis, good or bad. The brother's flare up after eating garlic and wheat was a coincidence. The aunt's improvement after eating garlic and wheat was a coincidence. Neither coincidence is far-fetched. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms ebb and flow. Discrepancy resolved. This answer requires synthetic thinking, drawing connections between the very specific and the very general. This answer will seem too general to many people. It is really hard for analytical thinkers to get the memo about supplementing their talents with synthetic thinking. For the vast majority of people, synthetic thinking is not a natural inclination and must be learned. The good news? It absolutely can be learned.** 7/10. I want you to explain how you knew, prior to seeing the answers, that gender was not at issue and diet was: Above you simply asserted that the question was about diet and not gender. You did not explain why. This answer is another common trap: messing around with one half of the problem, making some distinction or other, and leaving out the other half entirely. Focused on one half (men), and not focused on the real quandary. As far as we know, the aunt never tried the nightshade family vegetables. (focused on one side) Irrelevant "NO nightshade vegetables" has absolutely nothing to do with the real problem: -- two people ate the same food -- the food was not nightshade vegetables -- one person had a good result and the other had a bad result. You are correct that the right answer deals with diet and not gender, but I'm not sure that we know that fact before seeing the answers. Any rule would have to be 100% true about men, and 100% true about women. Such a rule is not likely to exist. I think it is not quite accurate to say, however, that gender differences are immaterial at the outset.** True. WHY? 9/10 (had you explained why and been correct, 10/10) For those who got trapped by E: This option would have us focus on Sammy and his aunt, and whether Sammy might benefit from the same diet as that of his aunt. Sammy and his aunt are not the people at issue. (We also have no idea whether they are biologically related.) adkikani , if you chose option C because you were absolutely certain that all the others were wrong, that's just fine. Strategic grade, use of PoE 10/10 Overall critical reasoning 7/10, maybe higher. I need reasons why -- not assertions that -- something is X or Y. (Context comment: your rejections were occasionally a bit off-base, esp. B., and not enough focused on linking the answer to NOT solving the mystery you yourself described) *No, we do not know from the argument that Helpful Thing in garlic is also in tomatoes and peppers. Brother needs to avoid garlic for SOME reason. May or may not be the same reason that he needs to avoid nightshade vegetables **Previously, I think you would have eliminated this answer because you would have been, as in this case, very focused on actual and specific foods. Detail-oriented and highly analytic thinkers are common. You have many pals.

The task is to supplement those tendencies with "big picture" thinking and synthetic thinking. Synthetic thinking = "the combination of ideas into a complex whole." Analytic vs synthetic thinking - See Lavina Agarwal's answer *** Suppose D said: "Men with arthritis can always be helped by diet, but only by not eating vegetables from the nightshade family. Women with arthritis can always be helped by diet, but women can be helped by a much wider variety of foods than those that help men." In that case, we have a "men always" and a "women always." The brother is male. The aunt is female. If my hypothetical D were an option, gender might well have something to do with the discrepancy. We know that gender is not the cause of the discrepancy only after we read C. Not buying that argument? Then tell me why, before seeing the answers, we know that the answer is not about gender and is about diet.

zoezhuyan · Answer

dear  generis ,
appreciate your explanation.
would you please elaborate further? I am not sure I have got it absolutely.

#1This answer is another common trap:  messing around with one half of the problem, making some distinction or other, and leaving out the other half entirely. 
it seems abstract for me.

#2-- the food was not nightshade vegetables
how can I infer this. I think the diet was nightshade vegetables because Pat's brother began that diet, his arthritis got worse. But he has been doing much better since he stopped eating vegetables in the nightshade family, so I can infer that the diet does not include nightshade vegetables.

this question confused me a lot.

genuinely need you help.

other experts, please join.  GMATNinja ,  GMATNinjaTwo

GMATNinja · Answer

We've put a breakdown of the passage in  this post  so we won't repeat that here. Take a look at that post before we go through why (B) is not the correct answer.

(B) tells us:
 
Remember, the question is really asking us what could explain the difference in how Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother reacted to eating large amounts of wheat germ and garlic.

Knowing that tomatoes and peppers have compounds that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis as this doesn't help us explain the  different reactions to eating wheat germ and garlic . For this reason, (B) is out.

To finish this question off, our explanation of why (C) is the correct answer is  here .

I hope that helps!

gmatassassin88 · Answer

AjiteshArun   VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

I chose option A.My reasoning: Sammy's aunt was able to move more easily because of a 'temporary' relief after eating. usage of word 'Temporary' i thought implies since RELIEF is mention frequent (often not always) & temporary , pat's brother may have not experienced the same. with this reasoning i though A to be the answer.
Please help in clearing the thought process where i went wrong.

KarishmaB · Answer

Sammy's aunt - Able to move easily right after starting the new diet. (seems the diet had a positive impact on her. Right after does not mean temporary effect. It means that effect started right after she started the diet)

Pat's brother - worsened after starting that diet.
But improved after giving up vegetables.

We need to explain the contrasting experiences with the same diet. So we need to explain why Sammy's aunt got better with garlic but Pat's brother got worse with it.

A. A change in diet, regardless of the nature of the change, frequently brings temporary relief from arthritis symptoms.
 
Change in diet brought relief to aunt but not to brother. So this doesn't explain why Pat's brother's condition worsened.

B. The compounds in garlic that can lessen the symptoms of arthritis are also present in tomatoes and peppers.

Doesn't say why Pat's brother did not experience relief after starting garlic diet.

C. Arthritis is a chronic condition whose symptoms improve and worsen from time to time without regard to diet.

Correct. It seems arthritis has no connection with diet.

D. In general, men are more likely to have their arthritis symptoms alleviated by avoiding vegetables in the nightshade family than are women.

No mention of the garlic diet. Irrelevant.

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.

Doesn't explain why the two experienced opposite reactions.

Answer (C)

bgk7392 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja . I was able to eliminate A, B, and D quite easily but had a really difficult choice between C and E. I ultimately ended up choosing E.

I agree C appears to be a reasonable answer choice and in the absence of E, I would have definitely chosen C. But, I inferred from E that a lack of close relationship between the two subjects involved may have caused the contrasting experiences.

Most of the explanations here discard E as Out of Scope. Can you please explain why E is not correct or why it is Out of Scope, incase it is?

GMATNinja · Answer

Here's (E):
 
As others in this thread have mentioned, we don't know the exact relationship between Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother -- but it's a bit of stretch to say that they are likely to be related. Luckily, there's something more definitively wrong with (E):

The issue with (E) is that it tells us that something is "more likely" than something else, without giving any insight into the  actual  likelihood of either thing occurring.

For instance, perhaps 95% of related people have the same result from adopting a certain diet, while only 94% of unrelated people have the same result. This meets the criteria laid out in (E), but does NOT really explain why Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother had contrasting experiences with the same diet.

Of course, you could choose numbers that DO explain the contrasting experiences -- if 95% of related people have the same result from adopting a certain diet, and only 20% of unrelated people have the same result, then sure! (E) would explain the issue at hand. Sadly, (E) just doesn't give us enough information to determine which scenario is true.

If (E) said that "unrelated people are  unlikely  to have the experience the same result from adopting a particular diet," then perhaps (E) would be more tempting. But because it uses the words "more likely" without providing further detail, (E) doesn't explain the issue in the passage.

I hope that helps!

Rickooreo · Answer

As per the concept you don't reject what is given in the claim while solving paradox question, taking this into consideration,

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.

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.

Doesn't the question says things changed because of diet and so we have to answer the paradox by saying diet + 3rd fact?
Option C rejects the premise, not sure how is it correct

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

Are you staying strictly focused on the only piece of the text that matters here?

When there are specifics in the question prompt, you MUST read that question prompt thoroughly and carefully,  
If you rush through the question and miss some detail that sets a boundary between relevant and irrelevant, that will completely erase any possible value of any reasoning you do from that point onward—and, ultimately, your choice of an answer option will functionally be indistinguishable from a random guess.

In this case, the prompt question is STRICTLY about  the   contrasting experiences   between Sammy's aunt and Pat's brother. 
The improvement that both of them had in the longer term, therefore, is irrelevant—because there's no contrast there.

The only CONTRAST is between the two people's INITIAL experiences. 
In the extreme shortest term, Sammy's aunt got better, but Pat's brother got worse.

Are you keeping your reasoning entirely 100.000000000% focused on THAT difference in THAT TIMEFRAME ONLY?

KarishmaB · Answer

Rickooreo

The premises give us correlation, not causation. 
"She was able to move more easily right after she started that diet" doesn't mean that the diet caused her condition to improve. It just means that the two things happened at the same time. In fact, they seem to be correlated, they may not even be that.

If the premises were to give us causation, they would say something like: the diet helped improve her health etc.

Hence, option (C) is not negating any given fact/premise.

Sammy: For my arthritis, I am going to try my aunt's diet: large amoun

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

Sammy: For my arthritis, I am going to try my aunt's diet: large amoun

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