Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective

Question

Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective in curbing the detrimental effects of osteoporosis, a condition characterized by the thinning of bone tissue and loss of bone density over time. This bone deterioration leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture, and osteoporosis can be blamed for three hundred thousand broken hips a year in the United States. Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury. But strangely, recent studies show that the death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.

B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.

C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.

D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.

E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Accepted Answer

IMO D.

A.The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.
 where the men are getting the calcium is irrelevant.

B.The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.  this can be a trap answer if you read in a rush but reading carefully its just saying that the people who took elevated quantities of calcium were not diagnosed with osteoporosis.- 'were not.' so it does not explain why the high death rate.

C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.
 comparison of risk between men and women is irrelevant.
 
D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.
 
The excessive calcium interferes with the ability to fight off prostate cancer which is prevented with the help of vitamin D. so the people who die are because of the prostate cancer and not because of oestoporosis.
 
E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.
 this point states the opposite of what we need to understand. not relevant.

Anshurana · Answer

IMO D

WE HAVE TO FIND WHY DEATH RAYE EVEN AFTER TAKING 2000Mg PLUS CALCIUM IS HIGH.
MAY BE TOO MUCH OF CALCIUM IS NOT GOOD.
Let's find out.

A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food. -- 
OUT , HOW THEY GOT THEIR CALCIUM IS NOT OUR CONCERN

B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.--

ITS NOT HELPING US TO FIND WHY DEATH RATE IS HIGH WITH MORE CALCIUM.--OUT

C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.-- 
OUT OF SCOPE -- THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN MEM AND WOMEN

D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.-- 
CORRECT, BECASUE OF TOO MUCH OF UNPROCESSED CALCIUM IN BODY , IT CAUSES CANCER AND THATS WHY THESE MEN DIES.

E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.--OUT THOUGHT THEY DONT HAVE BROKEN HIP , THEY STILL DIE FROM TOO MUCH OF CALCIUM INTAKE , REASON IS DIFFERENT.

Posted from my mobile device

stne · Answer

So eating Calcium prevents osteoporosis, elderly people are known to die if they facture a hip due to osteoporosis. Strangely it has been noticed that among people who eat more than 2000 m.g. of Calcium death rate is more than among people who consume less than 500 m.g.

So which option helps us to understand this finding?

A. Higher calcium takers got their calcium from food + supplement well as lower Calcium takers got their Calcium from food only: This does not explain why the death rate was higher among high Calcium takers, getting Calcium from food + supplement, if anything should actually be better than getting Calcium from only food, unless the supplements were of a poisonous nature. Since nothing of that sort is mentioned in the passage, taking Calcium in a combination of food and supplements does not explain the higher death rate. INCORRECT

B. So we can say higher Calcium takers did not have osteoporosis before they began taking the high dose: Does not explain the higher death rate among this demographic. If they did not have osteoporosis they should have had lower death rate. INCORRECT

C.Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women:Clearly does not explain why higher dosage Calcium takers have more death rate. INCORRECT

D. So taking higher Dosage calcium, makes one prone to prostate cancer, because taking high calcium dosage prevents the body from processing vitamin D, which prevents prostate cancer. This clearly explains why taking higher dosage of Calcium, causes more deaths.  CORRECT

E. Does not explain why more people died among the higher Calcium takers, if anything, causes the mystery to deepen further as to why among higher calcium takers death rate was more, even when their hips did not break. INCORRECT

Ans- D

Hope it's clear.

Aviral1995 · Answer

Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective in curbing the detrimental effects of osteoporosis, a condition characterized by the thinning of bone tissue and loss of bone density over time. This bone deterioration leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture, and osteoporosis can be blamed for three hundred thousand broken hips a year in the United States. Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury. But strangely, recent studies show that the death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

Here we need to find out reason behind the discrepancy that the death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.-- Irrelevant as it doesn't explain the discrepancy

B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.-- Irrelevant as it doesn't explain the discrepancy
 
C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.-- No comparison between men and women is relevant here

D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.--  Explains the discrepancy

E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.-- Irrelevant as it doesn't explain the discrepancy

NiftyNiffler · Answer

Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective in curbing the detrimental effects of osteoporosis, a condition characterized by the thinning of bone tissue and loss of bone density over time. This bone deterioration leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture, and osteoporosis can be blamed for three hundred thousand broken hips a year in the United States. Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury. But strangely, recent studies show that the death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.  -- The process of Calcium intake is not pertinent to the conclusion here

B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.  -- This still doesn't explain the harms of excessive calcium intake

C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.  -- The study doesn't make any comparison between men & women w.r.t osteoporosis

D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.  -- CORRECT, this gives occurrence of another disease linked to excess Calcium intake which could be a factor in mortality rate

E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.  -- Though it partially explains that higher calcium intake could contribute to other possibilities, it doesn't expand on it and in itself is not an explicit assumption

So, the answer is  D

sambitspm · Answer

Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective in curbing the detrimental effects of osteoporosis, a condition characterized by the thinning of bone tissue and loss of bone density over time. This bone deterioration leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture, and osteoporosis can be blamed for three hundred thousand broken hips a year in the United States. Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury. But strangely, recent studies show that the death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the surprising finding cited by the researcher?

Premise: Calcium is important for bones. Lesser amounts of calcium intake can lead to a condition- bone thinking.
Premise: This condition leads to broken hip.
Premise: Nearly a quarter of elderly people die due to broken hip.
Conclusion:  Men  who consume  more  calcium die more often than who  consume less calcium .

Now the link is the higher consumption either led to a condition that was detrimental for the health or triggered something that is leading to death. Also we are just talking about men here.

A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food. 
 There was no talk about the source of the calcium.

B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities. 
 Okay, not  all  might have been tested, but even if 1% aren't, all are not. So, NO.

C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women. 
 Talking about men only. So NO.

D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.
 
 Now this explains that higher intake is leading to Prostate Cancer. This might lead to higher death rate.

E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake. 
 But it still doesn't explain the death rate. So NO

Answer D

KarishmaB · Answer

Taking calcium curbs the detrimental effects of osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis leads to a dramatic increase in the risk of fracture.
Nearly a quarter of elderly people who break a hip die within the following year as a result of complications from the injury.

Death rate is actually significantly higher among those men who consume more than 2,000 mg of calcium per day than it is among those men who consume less than 500 mg.

So calcium intake helps in dealing with osteoporosis which presents danger to life.
But a recent study shows that 2000 mg leads to higher death rate than 500 mg (not related to osteoporosis).

So it looks like some calcium intake is good but higher intake has other issues. We need to find an option that explains this.

A. The men with the higher calcium intakes got their calcium from a combination of supplements and the food they consumed, whereas those with the lower calcium intakes got theirs exclusively from food.

Doesn't tell us that supplements are bad. How they got their calcium is irrelevant.

B. The men with the higher calcium intakes had not all been conclusively diagnosed with osteoporosis before they began consuming calcium in elevated quantities.

Why they started taking calcium is again irrelevant. Perhaps they were taking calcium for another reason. We are just given that the study found that men who were taking 2000 mg had higher death rate. Whether taking calcium was justified or not, it doesn't tell us.

C. Men are actually at a relatively low risk of osteoporosis compared to women.

Irrelevant.

D. Excessive calcium interferes with the body’s ability to effectively process vitamin D, which plays an important role in preventing prostate cancer.

If we are given that too much calcium is bad for us, that could explain the paradox, right? Though intake of calcium helps fight detrimental effects of osteoporosis, 2000 mg must be excessive for people so taking that is proving to be harmful.

E. The group with the higher calcium intake had a significantly lower incidence of broken hips than did the group with the lower calcium intake.

Irrelevant.

Answer (D)

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.

Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective

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

Researcher: Supplementing calcium has long been known to be effective

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