Critical Reasoning

voodoo_child wrote:

Here the OA is B

any thoughts why?

b) Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?

Testluv wrote:

voodoo_child wrote:

Here the OA is B

any thoughts why?

This is a relevant information question, which is not an uncommon question type on the GMAT. In such a question, the right answer will be something bi-directional: if it goes in one direction, it will strengthen the argument, and if it goes in the opposite direction, it will weaken the argument. So, these questions can be viewed as hybrid strengthen/weaken questions. The author argues:

"Because a study shows a connection between eating whole grains and lowered cholesterol, eating whole grains works as a way of lowering cholesterol."

Let's look at the right answer, applying this hybrid strengthen/weaken test:

b) Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?

Well, if the answer to this question is NO, the groups were NOT involved in the same exercise program, then the argument is WEAKENED because the improvement in cholesterol levels may have been due to a better exercise program (rather than due to eating whole grains).

And, if the answer is YES, the two groups WERE involved in the same program, then the argument is STRENGTHENED because an alternative cause (better exercise program) would be ruled out. Accordingly, it would be very useful to know the answer to this question in evaluating the claim about whole grains.

***

Another way of approaching relevant information questions is to think about what the author is assuming. In this question if you recognized the causal structure:

X (eating more grains) and Y (improved cholesterol levels) are connected, therefore X caused Y

then you know right away the author is assuming that there are no other causes.

Furthermore, whenever an argument is based on a study, the arguer ALWAYS assumes that there is nothing wrong with the study.

So, look for an answer choice that suggests that there may be something wrong with the study, perhaps one that also points to another cause--that's exactly what the OA does.

bubbliiiiiiii wrote:I think medication is too far from what is discussed in the passage.

When an option, like B, is available which are more close to what is being discussed and are very nearly related by an assumption, I always prefer to go it.

@Test Luv: Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Testluv wrote:

voodoo_child wrote:


Another way of approaching relevant information questions is to think about what the author is assuming. In this question if you recognized the causal structure:

X (eating more grains) and Y (improved cholesterol levels) are connected, therefore X caused Y

then you know right away the author is assuming that there are no other causes.

Furthermore, whenever an argument is based on a study, the arguer ALWAYS assumes that there is nothing wrong with the study.

So, look for an answer choice that suggests that there may be something wrong with the study, perhaps one that also points to another cause--that's exactly what the OA does.

I am still not sure about the problem with C. I think if you consider old people, medicines are the way to go. You cannot expect them to exercise. Reasoning - after a certain age, the doctor recommends against cardio.

I am still not convinced why b) is an option. Can anyone please help me ?

Voodoo