12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Public health official

Question

12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease . However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.

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

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

GMAT Club's Official Explanation:

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.
 - The first bolded portion, " ," represents an assumption that has influenced public health recommendations regarding low-fat diets. The second bolded portion, " ," is an inference or conclusion drawn from this assumption. The overall argument challenges this inference by introducing recent research suggesting that not all fats are harmful and some are beneficial, which contradicts the straightforward linkage between low-fat diets and reduced heart disease risk.

The other options do not as accurately describe the roles of the two bolded portions in the context of the argument:

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.
 - While this choice seems close, it doesn’t capture the specific dynamic that the first bolded portion is an assumption directly underlying the public health recommendations, as captured in option (C).

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
 - This reverses the roles of the bolded portions and doesn't align with the structure of the argument.

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
 - This choice does not accurately describe the relationship between the two portions; the second is not presented as a strategy but rather an inference from the assumption.

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
 - The argument doesn’t advocate the position in the second bolded portion; it challenges it.

Therefore, (C) is the correct choice as it accurately reflects the roles played by the two bolded portions in the argument.

DongTan · Answer

The correct answer is (C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.

In the argument, the first bold portion represents an assumption underlying the public health recommendations, which is the belief that calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and, consequently, heart disease. The second bold portion is an inference drawn from this assumption, suggesting that public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease by encouraging a low-fat diet.

However, the argument challenges this inference by presenting recent research that suggests not all fats are harmful and that some fats can be beneficial for heart health.

Therefore, (C) is the correct answer.

bv8562 · Answer

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease . However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.

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

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been  traditionally accepted  in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes. -  The argument only says that there are many nutritionists who believe that calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease. Saying that it has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science is a stretch.

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion. -  First is neither the conclusion nor the author seeks to establish it.

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges. -  Yes. The passage says "many nutritionists believe" which means it has not been proven scientifically. So, it's an assumption. And yes, the second is an inference drawn from this assumption. Because for public health campaigns to effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease by encouraging a low-fat diet then this assumption must be true as extensive nutritional studies have already shown that fats are more calorie-dense. And then the author challenges this inference by stating another fact that goes against it. Because if recent research suggests some fats are actually beneficial for heart health, then by encouraging a low-fat diet we might also reduce the intake of such beneficial fats, thereby increasing the risk of heart disease.

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed. -  The author does not refute the belief held by many nutritionists.

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.  The argument does not questions the belief held by many nutritionists. The author challenges the position or consequence stated in the second boldface.

Schinchan_bh · Answer

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.
The second part of A feels wrong to me.
(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
Wrong
(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.
Yes good the second is an inference based on the first.
(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
Wrong
(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
Wrong
(C) imo

rishikavats17 · Answer

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease . However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.

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

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.
-- The argument states that public officials have recommended low-fat consumption and that nutritionists believe calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease, nowhere does it imply that the first bold part is a hypothesis that is traditionally accepted in nutritional science. Eliminate.

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
-- First is not the conclusion of the argument. Eliminate.

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.
-- Correct. The first part is an assumption by public health officials and the second part is inferred from it.

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
-- The first part is correct however in the second part the argument doesn't state that the strategy is flawed but rather points out cases opposite to the one stated where fats might be helpful. This does not imply that the argument is outright rejecting the strategy. Eliminate.

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
-- The argument doesn't advocate the second part, 180 degrees. Eliminate.

Ans=C.

$!vakumar.m · Answer

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe, calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease, then by encouraging a low-fat diet, public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease. However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.

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

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.
The argument doesn't dispute the belief in the first portion; instead, it challenges the traditional recommendation based on this belief. Incorrect.
(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
The first is not the conclusion; it's a belief or hypothesis. The second is a premise supporting the recommendation. Incorrect.
(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.
This accurately describes the relationship between the two portions. Good to Keep. 
(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
This is close, but the argument doesn't aim to refute the belief; rather, it questions the strategy based on that belief. Incorrect.
(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
This is incorrect because the argument doesn't question the belief; it questions the strategy based on that belief.
 Answer C

brp616 · Answer

IMO C

A - the argument doesn’t dispute that public health campaigns could work, more of the focus on calories. Also less directly relevant to statements

B - false, they do not try to establish this it just says it is a common belief

C - true, the calorie idea underlies the assumption and the inference given in part 2 is drawn from the first, but is ultimately challenged

(D) - we don’t know the public health strategy is flawed, just the logic behind it

E - it does not advocate in second part

Posted from my mobile device

VivekSri · Answer

I will go with option C.

Let us start with option Elimination :

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes. -> Argument is not disputing it, rather it is giving additional point.

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion. -> First is not the conclusion.

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges. -> Argument is giving additional points that all fats are not bad for heart, so it is challenging that part. First is an assumption, second is inference.

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed. -> Flaw will become very harsh , as it is just giving additional points.

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates. -> OOS.

Suboopc · Answer

A) We don't know if this hypothesis is traditionally accepted in nutritional science. All we know is that many nutritionists believe this.
B) First is not a conclusion that argument wants to establish
 C)  This seems right
D) Argument does not want to refute the belief. Argument's point is about some fats being good and not about calories in general being good.
E) Argument does not advocate the second statement.

missionmba2025 · Answer

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science;  the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes .

The second part of the statement is not correct. The argument doesn't dispute that the public health campaigns cannot effectively reduce the incidence of heart diseases.

(B)  The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish ; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.

The first part of this statement is incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is the last sentence.

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.

Both part of the statement is correct. The Public Health officials believe that calories are the primary contributor to weight gain, as provided by the previous sentences. The argument challenges the hypothesis that all fats should be avoided.

(D)  The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute ; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.

The first part of the statement is incorrect. The argument doesn't say that calories are not the primary contributor to weight gain or to heart disease

(E)  The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.

Both parts are incorrect. Eliminate.

IMO C

AviNFC · Answer

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.  fats are more calorie dense is accepted

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.  first is not conclusion

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.  correct

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.  the argument doesn't refute calorie are primary source of weight gain/heart disease

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.  argument doesn't support the position

Ans C

DG1989 · Answer

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease,  then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease.  However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.

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

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.
  Explanation:   While the first part could be considered a traditional hypothesis, the second part isn't directly a conclusion but an extension of the hypothesis.   INCORRECT

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
  Explanation:   The argument doesn't explicitly aim to establish any specific conclusion yet. The second part is more of a supporting statement for the assumption.   INCORRECT

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.
  Explanation:   This choice is right. The first boldface introduces the assumption that calorie intake is the primary driver of weight gain and heart disease. This assumption forms the basis for the existing public health recommendation of low-fat diets. The second boldface introduces new research questioning the assumption of all fats being equally harmful. This challenges the inference that low-fat diets are automatically beneficial for heart health, since some fats might be beneficial or even necessary.   CORRECT

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
  Explanation:   he argument doesn't aim to refute a specific belief about all fats but rather challenge the assumption about their universal harmfulness.   INCORRECT

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
  Explanation:   The second part doesn't represent a complete position advocating something. It just introduces the complexity of fats and their potential benefits.   INCORRECT

Option C   is the right answer.

rd1009 · Answer

Public health officials have long recommended that people consume low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease. Extensive nutritional studies have shown that fats are more calorie-dense than carbohydrates or proteins. If, as many nutritionists believe,  calories are the primary contributor to weight gain and thus to heart disease , then by encouraging a low-fat diet,  public health campaigns can effectively reduce the incidence of heart disease . However, recent research suggests that not all fats are harmful and that some, like those found in nuts and fish, are actually beneficial for heart health.

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

(A) The first is a hypothesis that has been traditionally accepted in nutritional science; the second is a conclusion derived from this hypothesis that the argument ultimately disputes.
 while the first bold faced portion's purpose is correctly identified; the second bold faced portion is not disputed by the argument, rather challenged through an evidence

(B) The first is the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is a premise that is used to support this conclusion.
 Identified functions of the bold faced portions are not correct

(C) The first is an assumption underlying the public health recommendations; the second is an inference drawn from this assumption that the argument challenges.
 'belief' of nutritionists clearly highlighted in the passage; also , the second bold faced portion has been inferred from the assumption, and it depicts a claim that has been challenged in the last sentence of the argument

(D) The first is a belief held by many nutritionists that the argument aims to refute; the second is a strategy based on this belief that the argument suggests is flawed.
 while the first bold faced portion's purpose is correctly identified; the second doesn't suggest that the argument is a flawed one

(E) The first is a claim that the argument questions; the second is the position that the argument advocates.
 the second is the position that the argument rejects, not advocates

(C) is the answer

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.

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Public health official

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Public health official

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