|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
01 Jan 2024, 10:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.
The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
A. It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
B. It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
C. It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
D. It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
E. It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
A. It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
B. It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
C. It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
D. It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
E. It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
01 Jan 2024, 10:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.
The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
A. It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
B. It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
C. It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
D. It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
E. It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
• This choice points out a critical flaw in the health experts' reasoning. By drawing a conclusion based solely on the comparison between Region A and Region B regarding their dietary habits and incidence of heart disease, the experts may be overlooking other variables or factors that could influence heart health. These could include genetic factors, lifestyle differences, environmental conditions, or healthcare quality in the two regions.
The other options do not as accurately target the reasoning's vulnerability:
(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
• This is more about the potential effects of changing diet and doesn't directly address the flaw in the comparative analysis between the two regions.
(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
• While this is a common logical error, the primary issue in the argument is not about confusing the absence of a negative impact with a positive benefit, but rather about making a direct comparison without considering other variables.
(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
• While true, this doesn't directly address the flaw in the reasoning regarding the comparison made between the two regions and the impact of diet on heart health specifically.
(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
• This choice addresses the contradiction but doesn't specifically highlight the potential oversight of other differing factors between the regions, which is the core issue in the reasoning.
Therefore, (C) is the best choice as it directly addresses the potential oversight in the comparative analysis conducted by the health experts.
Answer: C
Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.
The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
A. It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
B. It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
C. It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
D. It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
E. It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
• This choice points out a critical flaw in the health experts' reasoning. By drawing a conclusion based solely on the comparison between Region A and Region B regarding their dietary habits and incidence of heart disease, the experts may be overlooking other variables or factors that could influence heart health. These could include genetic factors, lifestyle differences, environmental conditions, or healthcare quality in the two regions.
The other options do not as accurately target the reasoning's vulnerability:
(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
• This is more about the potential effects of changing diet and doesn't directly address the flaw in the comparative analysis between the two regions.
(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
• While this is a common logical error, the primary issue in the argument is not about confusing the absence of a negative impact with a positive benefit, but rather about making a direct comparison without considering other variables.
(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
• While true, this doesn't directly address the flaw in the reasoning regarding the comparison made between the two regions and the impact of diet on heart health specifically.
(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
• This choice addresses the contradiction but doesn't specifically highlight the potential oversight of other differing factors between the regions, which is the core issue in the reasoning.
Therefore, (C) is the best choice as it directly addresses the potential oversight in the comparative analysis conducted by the health experts.
Answer: C
06 May 2025, 19:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
I like the solution - it’s helpful.
