The higher---simple but really nice CR

[atulmangal]

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmoker. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals

B) The lung function of smokers whose diet are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets

C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.

E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream

[cans]

IMO E

[itsmebharat]

Is the answer A

@Cans, can u share the reasoning behind your answer choice?

[atulmangal]

OA is E only

conclusion: " therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals."

it talks only about the way for smokers....etc...so Op A is kind off irrelevant here..also apply the negation test on Op A for more clarity

[akshatmikku]

"Cans, can u share the reasoning behind your answer choice?"

I am no cans , but i can still answer your question so here goes my reasoning for this question -
k..so since this is an assumption question the quickest way to get to the ans is to use Assumption negation technique ( negate the assumption , if the argument falls apart then it is your correct ans )
So for ex pick option
a) it's assumption negation will be -Smokers are NOT less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals - so this supports the agrument presented hence it is not the correct ans
E) Smoking DOES introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream------YES SO THE ARGUMENT FALLS APART NOW ! since if you are a smoker no matter what you do you ain't improving you lung function by the intakes of vitamins since your body is pretty much scre**d by smoking ! hence this is your ans
hope this helps

[cans]

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmoker. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals

B) The lung function of smokers whose diet are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets

C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.

E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream

A,B - irrelevant (conclusion is not related to non smokers)
C - irrelevant (other health problems is not an issue)
D - its clearly mentioned one way to improve lung function. So stopping smoking is also a bit irrelevant
E - Note that the level of vitamins in bloodstream will improve lung function, So if some chemicals prevent vitamins from entering into bloodstream, no matter how much vitamins smokers take, lung function wont be improved.

I hope its clear now.

[singalong]

The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmoker. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.

Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?

A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals

B) The lung function of smokers whose diet are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets

C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.

E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream

A,B - irrelevant (conclusion is not related to non smokers)
C - irrelevant (other health problems is not an issue)
D - its clearly mentioned one way to improve lung function. So stopping smoking is also a bit irrelevant
E - Note that the level of vitamins in bloodstream will improve lung function, So if some chemicals prevent vitamins from entering into bloodstream, no matter how much vitamins smokers take, lung function wont be improved.

I hope its clear now.

But negating A ..."Smokers are not less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals". That means that when smokers are not going to have a diet which is rich in vitamins and minerals, the whole conclusion about smokers improving their lung function doesn't arise at all right?