This is a relevant information question. The right answer is something where, if it goes one way, the argument is strengthened, and if it goes the other way the argument is weakened (as such, we can call these "hybrid strengthen/weaken" questions).

A good paraphrase of the argument would be:

"Don't take this artificial fat because it will drain vitamins."

Should we or shouldn't we follow the author's recommendation not to take this artifical fat? That's the main issue.

Applying the hybrid strengthen/weaken test to [spoiler](A)[/spoiler]:

If increasing one's intake CAN compensate for the effects of the artifical fat, then we don't really have to worry about the vitamin loss, and the argument that we shouldn't take this fat is WEAKENED. Conversely, if increasing one's intake CAN'T compensate for the effects of the artifical fat, then the vitamin loss is a big deal, and the argument that we shouldn't take this fat is STRENGTHENED. So, [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] is correct.

What about [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]? Well, if the vitamins can be found in fat-containing foods, we certainly wouldn't want to eat those foods as that would defeat the purpose of taking the aritifical fat in the first place (to wit: losing fat!) So, whether or not one can find the missing vitamins in fat-containing foods is outside the scope of the arugment--neither here nor there.

columnist position -> People should avoid using ... artificial fat ... to reduce their fat intake.
to interpret further, columnist agrees that the fat intake should be reduced BUT not with the help of artificial fat. Hence, we must evaluate only artificial fat effects.

A. Whether increasing one's intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat - seems correct as the deficit of vitamins caused by artificial fat is removed.
B. Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat - strong contender BUT deals with keeping fat intake - so wrong
C. Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health - out of scope
D. Whether there are any foods that cannot be prepared using the artificial fat as a substitute for other fats - completely out of scope
E. Whether people are generally able to detect differences in taste between foods prepared using the artificial fat and foods that are similar except for the use of other fats - completely out of scope.

@Testluv: How would one evaluate the option C? Could you help.

C: Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health

No, extremely low fat intake does NOT endangers the health; then we don't care about artificial fat; and we can avoid it; or I should say out of SCOPE ? strenghtens the argument or no effects on the argument ?

Yes, extremely low fat intake endangers the health so one needs to take fat some how. And artificial fat will lead to lack of vitamins, endangering the health.Strenghtens the argument

Is my reasoning correct?

Or in first place, extremely low fat intake is out of scope as conclusion concern people suposed reduce fat intake. So extreme low is kind of an extreme answer choice.

This:

GMATMadeEasy wrote:@Testluv: How would one evaluate the option C? Could you help.


Or in first place, extremely low fat intake is out of scope as conclusion concern people suposed reduce fat intake. So extreme low is kind of an extreme answer choice.

is correct. In short (C) is about whether we need to take the artifical fat in the first place. Whereas the argument is about whether it's dangerous (and should be avoided for that reason).

The first sentence tells us we only care about "those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake." So, for a certain group of people, it's already given that fat reduction is good for them. You can eliminate (C) as outside the scope of the argument for that reason.

If the answer to (C) is "yes," having low fat intake for a long time can hurt your health, and if your medical adviser advises you to reduce your fat, then, out of concern for your health, you might take the artifical fat as a substitute. But the argument is unaffected in this case because we're no better off in terms of knowing whether this fat substitute is something to worry about.

And if the answer to (C) is "no," having a low fat intake for a long time can't hurth your health, then you simply won't take the artifical fat as you have no reason to. Again, the argument is unaffected because not having to take it isn't the same as it being dangerous to take.

@Testluv : I have printed your explanation as I need to align with this way of thinking in doing evaluate the argument questions. It was of great help. THANK you so much.

I fail to understand the reasoning behind (B).I feel the correct answer to be B...please elaborate .


The logic being :If we dont eat the food that this artificial fat has vitamins , then the problem is solved.

Testluv wrote:This is a relevant information question. The right answer is something where, if it goes one way, the argument is strengthened, and if it goes the other way the argument is weakened (as such, we can call these "hybrid strengthen/weaken" questions).

A good paraphrase of the argument would be:

"Don't take this artificial fat because it will drain vitamins."

Should we or shouldn't we follow the author's recommendation not to take this artifical fat? That's the main issue.

Applying the hybrid strengthen/weaken test to [spoiler](A)[/spoiler]:

If increasing one's intake CAN compensate for the effects of the artifical fat, then we don't really have to worry about the vitamin loss, and the argument that we shouldn't take this fat is WEAKENED. Conversely, if increasing one's intake CAN'T compensate for the effects of the artifical fat, then the vitamin loss is a big deal, and the argument that we shouldn't take this fat is STRENGTHENED. So, [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] is correct.

What about [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]? Well, if the vitamins can be found in fat-containing foods, we certainly wouldn't want to eat those foods as that would defeat the purpose of taking the aritifical fat in the first place (to wit: losing fat!) So, whether or not one can find the missing vitamins in fat-containing foods is outside the scope of the arugment--neither here nor there.

thank TEstluv.

most persons advise us to prethink an assumption before going to answer choices for evaluate as we as strenthen and weaken question. This prethink bring us closer to the correct answer.

I apply the prethinking and see the very effective. But for this question, I can not find the correct answer. The prethink give me " loose vitamin, so should avoid fat" . going to answer choices, I look for something which cast doub on the assumption I prethink. I do not find out and fail.

testluv. pls tell me"

what is the assumption of the weakener A/choice A?

second, pls, detail your process of thinking. what do you do after you realize the conclusion and evidence before going to answer choices. pls, detail this important step.

Thank you very much.

Testluv wrote:This is a relevant information question. The right answer is something where, if it goes one way, the argument is strengthened, and if it goes the other way the argument is weakened (as such, we can call these "hybrid strengthen/weaken" questions).

A good paraphrase of the argument would be:

"Don't take this artificial fat because it will drain vitamins."

Should we or shouldn't we follow the author's recommendation not to take this artifical fat? That's the main issue.

Applying the hybrid strengthen/weaken test to [spoiler](A)[/spoiler]:

If increasing one's intake CAN compensate for the effects of the artifical fat, then we don't really have to worry about the vitamin loss, and the argument that we shouldn't take this fat is WEAKENED. Conversely, if increasing one's intake CAN'T compensate for the effects of the artifical fat, then the vitamin loss is a big deal, and the argument that we shouldn't take this fat is STRENGTHENED. So, [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] is correct.

What about [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]? Well, if the vitamins can be found in fat-containing foods, we certainly wouldn't want to eat those foods as that would defeat the purpose of taking the aritifical fat in the first place (to wit: losing fat!) So, whether or not one can find the missing vitamins in fat-containing foods is outside the scope of the arugment--neither here nor there.

Hi, I got a different version of question (look below), in matter of fact, just answer choice B is different and it was the one I picked. Can someone explain why alternative B is wrong? Many Tks!

GmatPrep - Exam Pack 2 - Exam 5 - Question 2 - OA: A

Columnist: People should completely avoid using a certain artificial fat that has been touted as an alternative for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake. The artificial fat can be used in place of ordinary fats in prepared foods and has none of the negative health effects of fat, but it does have a serious drawback: it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body.

In evaluating the columnist's position, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A) Whether increasing one's intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat

B) Whether any of the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are destroyed by prolonged cooking

C) Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger a person's health

D) Whether there are any foods that cannot be prepared using the artificial fat as a substitute for other fats

E) Whether people are generally able to detect differences in taste between foods prepared using the artificial fat and foods that are similar except for the use of other fats