Which of the following most logically completes the argument given?
People in isolated rain-forest communities tend to live on a largely vegetarian diet, and they eat little salt. Few of them suffer from high blood pressure, and their blood pressure does not tend to increase with age, as is common in industrialized countries. Such people often do develop high blood pressure when they move to cities and adopt high-salt diets. Though suggestive, these facts do not establish salt as the culprit in high blood pressure, however, because ________.
Main Group: Ppl from isolated rain-forest moved to cities and adopted high-salt diets.
Main Issue: Those ppl develop HBP after moved to the cities and adopted high-salt diets. BUT Salt is not the reason. WHY?
Quote:
(A) genetic factors could account for the lack of increase of blood pressure with age among such people
So How did they develop HBP after moved to the cities? Was that because of salt? (A) is out.
Quote:
(B) people eating high-salt diets and living from birth in cities in industrialized societies generally have a tendency to have high blood pressure
Wrong group. Cities ppl vs. rain-forest ppl. (B) is out
Quote:
(C) it is possible to have a low-salt diet while living in a city in an industrialized country
Wrong group again. Ppl who adopted high-salt diet vs. ppl who follow low-salt diet. (C) is out
Quote:
(D) there are changes in other aspects of diet when such people move to the city
This explains it. Something else other than Salt caused HBP. Hang on to this.
Quote:
(E) salt is a necessity for human life, and death can occur when the body loses too much salt
So Salt is the reason of HBP or not? (E) don't tell me any thing about that. You are out!
Only (D) is left. (D) is our answer.