ExplanationQ1. The author would agree that: Passage summary:- Colorectal cancer risk factors: little exercise, excessive weight, family history, diet.
- Previously: high fiber thought to greatly reduce risk.
- Now: too much red meat and milk products increases risk more significantly.
- High fiber diets correlate with less red meat/dairy and other healthy lifestyle factors.
- Key sentence: “If there is any accepted truism regarding diet, lifestyle and the risk of contracting colorectal cancer then it is no longer the view that eating lots of fiber has an inverse association.”
- Today: focus on risk factors like high alcohol consumption.
A: The passage says the old view was that it greatly reduced risk, but now the focus is on red meat/dairy/alcohol risks. It doesn’t say fiber may protect, it implies the fiber effect may have been due to other correlated factors. So A is not supported.
B: This is the old view, now rejected. So B is contradicted.
C: This is tricky wording. The passage says:
“If there is any accepted truism ... then it is no longer the view that eating lots of fiber has an inverse association.” That means the old truism (fiber reduces risk) is gone, but it doesn’t say there’s no accepted truism at all — there might be new ones (like alcohol increases risk). So
C says
“no longer an accepted truism” in general, which is too broad — the passage only says the fiber truism is gone. So C is not exactly right.
D: The passage never says fiber increases risk — it just says the protective effect is no longer accepted. So
“no adverse association” means fiber doesn’t increase risk, which is consistent with the passage. This seems true: they don’t claim fiber is harmful.
E: The passage only discusses colorectal cancer, not heart disease. It might be true in reality, but the author doesn’t state or imply this in the passage. So E is out of scope.
Answer: D