Critical Reasoning

Source - Grockit

Bodybuilders often try to increase muscle mass by consuming whey protein powder. Such whey protein powders have a higher protein to calorie ratio than most natural foods. Natural food protein sources, such as eggs or lean meats, are better for increasing muscle mass than whey protein powders.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support to the argument above?

1. Some natural food sources are less expensive than most protein powders.

2. Protein consumption can be maximized with a high protein to calorie ratio, and adequate protein consumption is important for increasing muscle mass

3. The speed of absorption of protein powder is much faster than that of natural foods, and sustained protein absorption is critical for increasing muscle mass.

4. Eggs contain a unique kind of protein that many protein powder manufactures try to imitate with their formulas.

5. Some natural foods , such as a simple carbohydrates, do not effectively aid muscle growth.

OA Later

IMO B.

I believe the key is to figure which of the words sound more positive to attribute it to natural foods ...therefore strengthen

compare adequate to high -> appears high is better than adequate
compare sustained to high -> appears sustained is better than high

So imo C

I would say option #3.

#1. Irrelevant to the paragraph above. (throw out)
#2. Talks about why whey is good but you are trying to strengthen the argument against using whey. (throw out)
#3. This option states that sustained protein absorption is critical for increasing muscle mass while the speed of whey absorption is faster than natural foods (seems to support support for the argument)
#4. This option talks about egg protein and how formulas try to imitate it. (Irrelevant, throw out)
#5. This option talks about carbohydrates which is not even mentioned in the above argument (throw out)

Best answer is option #3 in my opinion.

OA is C, but how is speed of absorption and sustained protein absorption matter here? What are these two things? Please explain.

You need the speed of absorption to be "sustained" - i.e., spread out over a longer period of time to aid muscle growth

With whey protein, it gets absorbed at a faster rate than natural food sources, so it is less sustained... thus if the yardstick to test muscle growth is sustained absorption of proteins then natural foods work better as the rate of absorption is slower/more sustained...

Option C doesn't seem very convincing to me.
Ihis choice attempts to make both "the speed of absorption..."
and ", and adequate protein consumption" parallel.

I think the use of "but" to create the required contrast is better than
the conjunction "and" as used.

If used, option C reads thus:

The speed of absorption of protein powder is much faster than that of natural foods, BUT
sustained protein absorption is critical for increasing muscle mass.

What do you guys think?

I agree with GMAT driller but is required to highlight contrast or else this option cant be convinving.
Without BUT D seems beeter answer as the artifcial supplements are trying to imitate protein found in egg and they may not have succedded in imitating the protein completely.

IMO : C

IMO C

as this clearly states that why natural food protein source is better than protein powders.

abhi0697 wrote:IMO C

as this clearly states that why natural food protein source is better than protein powders.

Could you offer any criticism of the suggestion I made above please...
Thanks

gmatdriller wrote:Option C doesn't seem very convincing to me.
Ihis choice attempts to make both "the speed of absorption..."
and ", and adequate protein consumption" parallel.

I think the use of "but" to create the required contrast is better than
the conjunction "and" as used.

If used, option C reads thus:

The speed of absorption of protein powder is much faster than that of natural foods, BUT
sustained protein absorption is critical for increasing muscle mass.

What do you guys think?

Hi gmatdriller,

(C) "The speed of absorption of protein powder is much faster than that of natural foods, and sustained protein absorption is critical for increasing muscle mass."

Answer (C) is stating two separate facts.
(1) The speed of absorption of protein powder is much faster than that of natural foods.
(2) Sustained protein absorption is critical for increasing muscle mass.

The first part of the sentence tells us that protein powder is absorbed much faster than natural food protein. The second part tells us that sustained protein absorption is critical for muscle growth. The combination of these two facts indicates that natural food protein is better for increasing muscle mass than protein powder. This supports the conclusion and is therefore the correct answer.

The point here is that the answer choice is presenting two separate facts. It makes no difference how those facts are grammatically connected. As you stated they could have used the conjunction "but". They could have also used "however" or they could have just presented two separate sentences as I did above. I suppose they chose to use "and" because it does not show contrast and it therefore makes the correct answer a little harder to spot. The main point is that the answer choice presents two separate facts and those facts combined support the conclusion. The use of the word "and" does nothing to change this.

Hope this helps...