Critical Reasoning

A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.

(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.This is just opposite of what the argument says
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.It doesnt prevent but reduces the chances
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.CORRECT
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.Doesn't prevent but reduce the chances
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.It is not mentioned in the argument

IMO : D

0 ---> 32%
250 ---> 34% <====
1500 ---> 9%

I will go with D.
I think the stimuli is tempting us to think that based on the data provided we can say that Vitamin C has a sure-shot effect on incidence of flu but we cannot know this wihtout knowing more about the data set. The use of word "may" in D makes it more plausible.

Vinayak

D seems plausible inference based on the facts.

clash of titans??C or D

IMO C

IMO C

IMO for D to be true it should be consistent with the fact that from 600 mg to none except found in fruits which we didnt know, the deviation should be high or low.

OA I have is D, I opted for C
I am not convinced with OA..
Any expert????

(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.


reduce the incidence by 25% :--> With respect to What?

0 mg
or
250 mg
or
Over all public
so C is out.


(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.

is the next best option.

Not convinced with the OA.
Don't like D because of "massive doses". What does that mean???

Not convinced with the OA. If 'D' had massive doses of swine flu reduces the serious cases of swine flu, then 'D' would have been correct.

It seems to me that the right answer is D