Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee

Question

Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee Camp might be at risk for beriberi, a severe deficiency of Thiamine, a B vitamin.  Thiamine is found in high concentrations in cereal grains, and many of the residents have grain free diets because of allergies.  Doctors and nutritionists assigned to investigate the situation have disagreed, noting that the residents grow sustenance amounts of potatoes, kale, and cauliflower on the surrounding farm lands, and these foods provide substantial sources of Thiamine as well. Because the residents of this refugee camp do not have any allergies to any of these latter foods, and crops have been good because of favorable weather conditions,  their risk of beriberi is much lower than originally thought.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion. 
B) The first is evidence that seems to contradict the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C) The first is the conclusion of the argument; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
D) The first is the conclusion of the argument; the second calls is an alternate interpretation of this conclusion.
E) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the argument.

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear Harley1980, I'm happy to help! :-)

Another one that I wrote! :-)

OK, let's step back and look at the prompt as a whole, and consider the nameless narrator who is telling us this whole story. What is that nameless narrator's conclusion? Well, he tells us out the aid workers who had one conclusion, but then tells us about the doctors and nutritionists who are presented as much more well informed, and this folks reach a different conclusion. Clearly, the conclusion of the nameless narrator is that the doctors and the nutritionists are perfectly correct, and the aid workers were mistaken because they were not aware of the full spectrum of the evidence. The end of the paragraph, the conclusion of the doctors & nutritionists, is also the conclusion of the nameless narrator. This, the second bold statement, is THE conclusion of the prompt argument. Always remember that there is a nameless narrator telling us the prompt argument. This person is making the argument, and the conclusion of the argument is that narrator's conclusion, which may well coincide with the conclusion of some of the characters in the prompt. OK, right away, that knocks out (C) & (D) & (E) , all of which say that the second bold statement is something other than the argument. This leaves (A) & (B) . The first bold statement does NOT support the conclusion: it completely contradicts the conclusion. That means (A) is out, leaving only the OA, (B) . The first bold statement is perfectly factual--- it is evidence. It seems, taken by itself, to suggest a high risk of beriberi, and this is what the air workers conclude. Taken as part of the whole though, the evidence in the first bold statement does not really present an impediment to the conclusion. Does all this make sense? Mike

Harley1980 · Answer

Thank you Mike. Your questions and explanations as usual are perfect

AMsac123 · Answer

Hi Mike but isnt i providing evidence also as they are not having cereal grains ? So isnt it A

@mikemgarry

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Asac123 , I'm happy to respond. The conclusion is that the risk of beri-beri is low . That's the second BF. One thing that would prevent beri-beri would be grains high in thiamin. But the first BF tells us these people can't eat grains! That would support the idea that the risk of beri-beri is high . This contradicts the conclusion (this was the naive conclusion of the aid workers.) Does this make sense? Mike :-)

aragonn · Answer

Official Explanation 
The first sentence is at least a tentative conclusion --- any prediction cannot be evidence: it has to be a conclusion. The second sentence is the evidence for this first position --- this first boldface part is the evidence #1. Then we get the doctor's view. These doctors don't dispute evidence #1, but they also point out evidence #2 --- thiamine from foods like potato & kale & cauliflower, which these refugee folks do eat. Finally, we get conclusion #2, the doctors conclusion, the second boldface part.

How do we say this? Evidence #1, the first boldface part, seemed to support conclusion #1, but as new evidence shows, conclusion #2, which says the opposite, is correct. The second is the conclusion of the argument.

(B) is the credited response. The second is definitely the conclusion of the argument. The first is evidence, and by itself, that evidence would seem to support conclusion #1 (the opposite of conclusion #2), so in that sense, it would seem to oppose conclusion #2.

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.

Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee

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

Aid workers have worried that residents of the Eastern Gobi Refugee

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