It is widely known that oxidants are toxic in large amounts, and our

Question

It is widely known that oxidants are toxic in large amounts, and our cells naturally generate their own anti-oxidants to neutralize them. Accordingly it is advised that  people boost the intake of antioxidants to counter the effects of toxic "reactive oxygen species," or ROS, the elevated levels of which are connected with various cancers.  However, such advice may not have any substantial medical grounds as  new research shows that tumor-promoting ROS are produced at cellular energy factories called mitochondria whereas supplements and dietary antioxidants tend to accumulate at scattered distant sites in the cell not connected with mitochondria at all.

In the argument above, the two bold-face portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first acts as evidence against the position taken by the argument; the second acts as a reason in support of the position taken by the author.

(B) The first is evidence that the argument disputes; the second is an observation that supports the main conclusion drawn by the argument

(C) The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole disputes; the second is evidence that supports the position taken by the argument.

(D) The first is a conclusion that is disputed by the argument; the second is evidence that supports that conclusion

(E) The first is a conclusion against the position taken by the argument; the second acts as evidence in support of that position

rosalynd · Answer

Ok, so basically the argument is saying that people are told to take antioxidants to fight off bad things called "reactive oxygen species" which are linked to cancer. BUT, new research shows that these cancer-causing things are made in one part of the cell while the antioxidants are collected in another part of the cell, and this basically means that taking antioxidants might not actually help. So the first part is the opposite of what the argument is saying, and the second part supports the argument's position. So the answer is C.

Ps1810 · Answer

So If we see the arrangment of the passage we can see that it has a fact >> an intermediate conclusion>>Main conclusion >>a reason or fact to support the argument . So while going through the answers we can see that C and B have very similar wordings. B has a word Evidence , which the first bold face is not and C has a conclusion , which is an intermediate conclusion and that is what resembles our arrangement. There you go C is our answer! Let me know if I screwed it somewhere or someone else has another approach to the answer!! Thanks is Advance!

szcz · Answer

Can someone help me with why option E is wrong but option C is correct?  GMATNinja   KarishmaB   Bunuel

KarishmaB · Answer

This is not an official question so I wouldn't worry about it. I think they have made (C) and (E) too close for comfort. That said, I did pick (C) because its wording is a bit more accurate. 
(C) The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole disputes; the second is evidence that supports the position taken by the argument.
(E) The first is a conclusion against the position taken by the argument; the second acts as evidence in support of that position

There is no doubt that the first BF is a conclusion (advisory) and not a premise/fact/evidence. The argument as a whole disputes this advisory and hence (C) sounds better out of the two though in an official question, I wouldn't think twice before marking (E) as the answer too.

Hence I said that you shouldn't worry about the question.

monkinaferrari · Answer

KarishmaB , could you please help me to understand why BF1 is a conclusion and not an evidence .

KarishmaB · Answer

Somebody's advice can never be a fact/premise/support. It is somebody's opinion. Hence it falls in the claim/conclusion/hypothesis group.

If I say, "A is the best thing for you," is it a fact? No. "A is the best thing for you" is my opinion and opinions are conclusions.

imRaj · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB  ! Is the word 'dispute' same as the word 'negate'?In this arg, how is  the author's claim that advice doesn't have sufficient medical grounds DIRECTLY disputes the intermediate conclusion?does it tells that the advice is not correct? I am bit confused. Pls help

KarishmaB · Answer

'Disputes' means 'conflicts with,' 'raises doubt,' 'weakens' or 'is against' etc.
So "The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole disputes" means that the first raises doubt on the veracity of the conclusion of the argument.

The first is against the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion of the argument says that intake of antioxidants may not counter the effects of toxic ROS. 
The first BF says that intake of antioxidants counters the effects of toxic ROS.

Hence the first deos dispute the conclusion of the argument.

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.

It is widely known that oxidants are toxic in large amounts, and our

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

It is widely known that oxidants are toxic in large amounts, and our

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