Poor nutrition is at the root of the violent behavior of many young of

Question

Poor nutrition is at the root of the violent behavior of many young offenders. Researchers observed that in a certain institution for young offenders, the violent inmates among them consistently chose, from the food available, those items that were low in nutrients. In a subsequent experiment, some of the violent inmates were placed on a diet high in nutrients. There was a steady improvement in their behavior over the four months of the experiment. These results confirm the link between poor nutrition and violent behavior.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Some of the violent inmates who took part in the experiment had committed a large number of violent crimes.

(B) Dietary changes are easier and cheaper to implement than any other type of reform program in institutions for young offenders.

(C) Many young offenders have reported that they had consumed a low-nutrient food sometime in the days before they committed a violent crime.

(D) A further study investigated young offenders who chose a high-nutrient diet on their own and found that many of them were nonviolent.

(E) The violent inmates in the institution who were not placed on a high-nutrient diet did not show an improvement in behavior.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

I can see a couple different problems with the logic here. First, the second sentence says that the violent inmates consistently chose items that were low in nutrients. But the facts do  not  say that the nonviolent inmates did  not  choose low-nutrient foods. If everyone is choosing the french fries, then how can you say the french fries cause violence? This is a major hole in the argument. The other problem I see is that the third sentence says some of the violent inmates were placed on a high-nutrient diet, and that the behavior of these inmates improved after the switch to a better diet. But the facts do not say that the inmates  not  chosen for the better diet did  not  improve their behavior! So the evidence here is extremely weak. If you’re going to do a study, you need a control group. There was no control group here. This isn’t science, it’s a bunch of pseudoscientific bullshit.

The question asks us to  strengthen  the argument, which means we need to switch teams. My first idea is that the correct answer might defend against my weakeners above. An answer like, “The nonviolent inmates did not choose low-nutrient foods,” or, “The inmates not chosen for the better diet did not improve their behavior” would be pretty sweet.

A) There’s nothing here that would strengthen or weaken the connection between bad diets and violent behavior. I doubt this can be the answer.

B) This is completely irrelevant. The conclusion of the argument is, “There’s a connection between bad diets and violent behavior.” The cost efficiency of making dietary changes has no bearing on whether or not this connection exists. No way.

C) I suppose this provides  some  anecdotal evidence that would strengthen the connection between bad diets and violent crime. But this is a very weak strengthener. I will be surprised if we don’t find a better strengthener below.

D) “A further study" just isn't relevant. The argument concluded “These results confirm the link between poor nutrition and violent behavior." In other words, the conclusion is that this specific study at this specific institution confirms the link between poor nutrition and violent behavior. But the first study seems to have lacked a control group. A further study can certainly use better methods and itself confirm the link, but a new study can't prove that the previous study was valid.

E) This is  directly  related to our “control group” theory: this is exactly what we were looking for. This answer, if true, would provide a control group for the study that was mentioned in the argument.

Our answer is E.

Nidzo · Answer

(A) This is irrelevant to the argument.  Incorrect

(B) Irrelevant to the argument.  Incorrect

(C) This implies that a single consumption of a lo w-nutrient food could alter behaviour which is very extreme. The argument is not about the impact on behaviour low-nutrient food, rather the impact of a low-nutrient diet on behaviour which makes this choice irrelevant.  Incorrect

(D) This does not do much to solidify the author's argument. The argument looks at violent young offenders and not nonviolent young offenders. A high-nutrient diet is not the reason behind non-violence, rather a low-nutrient diet is the reason behind violence.  Incorrect

(E) This strengthens the argument. This choice provides a control group to the study which shows that it is in fact the high-nutrient diet which improved behaviour.  Correct

Answer E

trulyness · Answer

This is a cause-effect logic passage. In this passage, we're told that poor nutrition causes violent behavior. We can strengthen a cause-effect argument in one of the following ways:

If A causes B then:
i. B does not cause A.
ii. When A didn't happen, B didn't happen.
iii. C does not cause B. 
iv. C does not cause both A and B.

With this in mind, we can very easily choose the option E as it fits the type ii.

Also, if you are confused between D and E, notice carefully the wording of D.

A further study investigated young offenders who chose a high-nutrient diet on their own and found that  many of them  were nonviolent. If you strictly go via the definition of many, it means 2 or more. So, for all we know out of all the young offenders who chose the high-nutrient diet only 2 were nonviolent and that doesn't really help us to strengthen this argument.

Hope this helps!

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.

Poor nutrition is at the root of the violent behavior of many young of

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

Poor nutrition is at the root of the violent behavior of many young of

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