Critical Reasoning

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer. Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3's, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists' claim.
The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
There is no evidence the first portion is an opinion. And the second part seems to be a fact that was previously known. Wrong

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists' claim.
The argument is that increasing intake of fatty fish -> lowering rate of kidney cancer. The first BF states that this relationship is inconclusive and hence it goes against the argument or at the least does not support it. The second part uses logic to prove the opposite of consuming fatty fish. Correct.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
The scientists are trying to solve whether fatty fish intake affects rate of kidney cancer.The first BF does not directly present this as a quandary. Wrong.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
As stated above the first BF at best does not support the argument. The second piece at best supports the claim by logically deducing what would happen by consuming non fatty fish. Wrong.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
The first BF does not explain anything but presents information that goes against the conclusion. Wrong

If one piece of information in inconclusive while the other is conclusive - is it appropriate to say that one information is going against other? Isn't it a flaw in the reasoning?

I would go with Option D.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.

The scientists attribute the low rate of cancer to intake of Omega acids where as the second piece states that the concerned fish e.g. the lean fish is rarely rich in fatty acids.

Previous studies have been inconclusive about the relationship between the fish and the cancer supports the argument because the scientists claims based on their study remains undisputed.

How come the first BF is supporting the argument. It's neutral because it was inconclusive - yes, it doesn't go against the argument but it doesn't support either. Thats my reasoning and am trying to find out whether it's a right way to go or not!!

Second BF is kind of finding (or evidence) that supports the claim presented in the argument.

OA: B

Would someone please clarify it?

b should be answer

Could you please explain it and help me with my question?

the first part is a fact but how do we know that it goes against the argument?

None of the option make sense.

ansumania wrote:the first part is a fact but how do we know that it goes against the argument?

Because it begins with the word "though" which is a contrast keyword. So, if we know that the first boldface opposes the argument, we can just scan the first clauses of the answer choices, and eliminate accordingly...we can eliminate all the choices except for B.

Or, we can understand that the second boldface is evidence. Their argument is that fatty and not lean fish reduce cancer because fatty and not lean fish have these omega 3s. If we see the second boldface is evidence supporting the argument, we can just scan the second clauses of the answer choices, and eliminate accordingly....again, we can eliminate all choices but B.

_____

Tips for boldface:
--use keywords
--identify conclusion and evidence (even if they are not in bold)
--also identify counter-conclusion and counter-evidence (most times there are 2 opposing points of view in boldface).