Cholesterol & Heart Attack

actually A tells one of the fact mentioned in the passage but this is not the conclusion of the passage

conclusion is result of effect of lifestyle on the cholesterol level on blood which E clearly tells

iikarthik wrote:Hi

Can someone explain why option A is not the answer.
The OA is E

Thanks
karthik

These days, drug companies and health professionals
alike are focusing their attention on cholesterol in the
blood. The more cholesterol we have in our blood, the
higher the risk that we shall die of a heart attack. The
issue is pertinent since heart disease kills more North
Americans every year than any other single cause, At
least three factors-smoking, drinking, and exercise can
each influence levels of cholesterol in the blood.
Which one of the following can be properly
concluded from the passage?
(A) If a person has low blood cholesterol, then that
person's risk of fatal heart disease is low.
(B) Smoking in moderation can entail as great a risk
of fatal heart disease as does heavy smoking.
(C) A high-cholesterol diet is the principal cause of
death in North America.
(D) The only way that smoking increases one's risk
offatal heart disease is by influencing the
levels of cholesterol in the blood.
(E) The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered by
certain changes in lifestyle.

This is an inference question and in these type of questions, no new information outside of the passage can be brought in. A person might have some other problem due to which his/her risk of fatal heart disease might be high. The passage does not indicate that high cholesterol alone is responsible for fatal heart diseases. Hence (A) is ruled out.

hey, the passage just says that the more cholestrol we have in our blood, the higher the risk of a heart attack. Whether low cholestrol translates into its polar opposite may or may not be true - the passage doesn't talk about that.

The passage says that: more cholesterol => higher risk of heart attack. The answer says that lower cholesterol => lower risk of heart attack. These statements are NOT equivalent. Try to do the problem yourself using the following statement:

If we have A => B, then we also have that 'not B' => 'not A' by the contrapositive (this is always true, regardless of what A and B are). Use the hints below if you're still stuck. The answer is below if you're still stuck after the hints.

Hint 1
[spoiler]Let A = more cholesterol and B = higher risk of heart attack. Try to do the exercise yourself now...[/spoiler]

Hint 2
[spoiler]A => B and B => A are not the same statement![/spoiler]

Answer
[spoiler]Let A = more cholesterol and B = higher risk of heart attack. The passage says that A => B. Now, by our formulation, 'not A' = lower cholesterol and 'not B' = lower risk of heart attack. The answer says that 'not A' => 'not B,' which is the same thing as saying that B => A... since 'not not A' is the same thing as A. Since the passage and the answer say two different things, choice A is incorrect.[/spoiler]