V37-01

Question

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease . However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.
 
In the argument above, the two portions in bold play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a longstanding universal theory in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion universally endorsed based on this theory, which the argument rejects
B. The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion. 
C. The first is a belief underlying the public health recommendations; the second is a conclusion drawn from this belief that the argument challenges.
D. The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
E. The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease . However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.
 
In the argument above, the two portions in bold play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a longstanding universal theory in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion universally endorsed based on this theory, which the argument rejects
B. The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion. 
C. The first is a belief underlying the public health recommendations; the second is a conclusion drawn from this belief that the argument challenges.
D. The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
E. The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.

(C) The first is a belief underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this belief that the argument challenges.
 
• The first bolded portion, "calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease," represents a belief that has influenced public health recommendations regarding low-fat diets. The second bolded portion, "public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease," is an inference or conclusion drawn from this belief. The overall argument challenges this inference by introducing recent research suggesting that not all fats are harmful and some are beneficial, which contradicts the straightforward linkage between low-fat diets and reduced heart disease risk.
 
The other options do not as accurately describe the roles of the two bolded portions in the context of the argument:
 
(A) The first is a longstanding universal theory in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion universally endorsed based on this theory, which the argument rejects.
 
 The first portion is not a longstanding universal theory and the second statement is a challenge and not a rejection.
 
(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
 
 This reverses the roles of the bolded portions and doesn't align with the structure of the argument.
 
(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
 
 This choice does not accurately describe the relationship between the two portions; the second is not presented as a strategy but rather an inference from the assumption.
 
(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
 
 The argument doesn’t advocate the position in the second bolded portion; it challenges it.

Answer: C

xxdw0007 · Answer

poor quality question

bb · Answer

Hi. Not sure if that was a reference to formatting here on the forum as bold was clashing with boldface. I fixed that. Let me know if any specific comments/questions about the answer choices, question, or explanation.

VKG007 · Answer

Option A captures "tradtionally accepted in nutrition science" while Option C captures "public health recommendations".. Both capture one point and miss the other. How can we penalise one option over the other?

Gemmie · Answer

Correct Answer: C. The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.

The first bold portion, "calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease," is a fundamental assumption upon which the recommendation for low-fat diets is based.

The second bold portion, "by encouraging a low-fat diet, public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease," is an inference drawn from this assumption.The argument later challenges this inference by introducing the idea that not all fats are harmful.

---

Incorrect Answers:

A. The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes. 
While the first part about calories being the primary contributor to weight gain might be considered a hypothesis, the core issue is that it's an underlying assumption for the public health recommendation, not a hypothesis that the argument directly disputes.

B. The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion. 
The argument doesn't seek to establish that calories are the primary contributor to weight gain. It's a given assumption. The conclusion is more about the effectiveness of low-fat diets in reducing heart disease.

D. The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed. 
The argument doesn't aim to refute the belief that calories contribute to weight gain. It challenges the inference drawn from this belief, which is the effectiveness of low-fat diets.

E. The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates. 
The argument doesn't question the claim about calories and weight gain. It accepts this as a given and then analyzes the consequences of this assumption. The argument's focus is on the effectiveness of low-fat diets, not on questioning the role of calories.

cosmiclatte · Answer

Hello,

Throughout my GMAT studies, I have learned (from various sources) and followed the rule that an assumption is an unstated premise. Therefore, as an unstated premise, by definition, boldface text that appears in a prompt can never be an assumption (because the boldface text is explicitly stated), implying that all option choices that identify any boldface to have any relation to an assumption are wrong.

However, the answer to this question goes against that notion entirely, given that the correct answer is C, which says that BF1 is an assumption. Because of what I learned, I eliminated C. Honestly, I was able to eliminate the rest as well but settled with D (even though BF2 is clearly not a strategy) simply because C specified BF1 as an assumption, which I thought was something the GMAT would never do. As such, I am confused and would appreciate helpful insight and clarification to my understanding, reasonings, and best ways to know when I can view a BF as an assumption, should the need arise.

bb · Answer

Very good point! I completely agree about the assumption having to be unstated. Let me check on this one with someone who is smarter than me

bb · Answer

Sorry about the wait. The answer I got from the author of the question is that it would technically be acceptable to call this "assumption" because the first bolded statement,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , is explicitly stated and forms the basis of the logical structure for claims that follow. So, while traditionally, assumptions are implicit, in this context, it's functioning as a foundational assumption/belief that the argument relies on

However, it is indeed better to rename it from assumption to something else so it does not confuse anyone - good point!

I have changed it to be "belief"

cosmiclatte · Answer

Thank you so much for the reply and explanation! The change in wording is perfect. When presented as a belief, rather than an assumption, I would surely select that answer choice! 😀

Ghoskrp3 · Answer

C.    The first is a belief underlying the public health recommendations; the second is a conclusion drawn from this belief that    the argument challenges    (later another argument challenges).

I feel the answer is  poorly worded , I understood that the same argument portion in the bold portion challenged the other bold portion. I suppose, it must have been a confusing occurrence for other readers as well.

bb · Answer

C) Identifies the first bold as “a belief underlying the public health recommendations,” and the second as “a conclusion drawn from this belief that the argument   challenges  .”
 
 This fits well:

First bold = underlying assumption (calories → weight gain → heart disease). 
 Second bold = conclusion (therefore, a low‐fat diet cuts calories → less heart disease). 
 The new research points out that some fats are beneficial, thereby   challenging   (i.e., weakening) the second bold conclusion.

mbaengineerIB · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

SHOWUP · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

asnukiasgh · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

asnukiasgh · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

bagarwal11 · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. Answer should have been D, it captures the essence better

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

bagarwal11

Option D The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute- wrong the argument is not refuting the belief, the argument is not in favor of the promoting low fat diet by presenting cou ter argument; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed- No not at all it's not an strategy

V37-01

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