Researchers have found that when very overweight people, who tend to have relatively low metabolic rates,
lose weight primarily through dieting, their metabolisms generally remain unchanged. They will thus burn
significantly fewer calories at the new weight than do people whose weight is normally at that level. Such
newly thin persons will, therefore, ultimately regain weight until their body size again matches their metabolic
rate.
The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Relatively few very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tend to continue to consume
substantially fewer calories than do people whose normal weight is at that level.
(B) The metabolisms of people who are usually not overweight are much more able to vary than the metabolisms of
people who have been very overweight.
(C) The amount of calories that a person usually burns in a day is determined more by the amount that is
consumed that day than by the current weight of the individual.
(D) Researchers have not yet determined whether the metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be
accelerated by means of chemical agents.
(E) Because of the constancy of their metabolic rates, people who are at their usual weight normally have as much
difficulty gaining weight as they do losing it.
consumer/candy manufacturer
This topic has expert replies
I would choose 'A'.
Reason: With an assumption question, the best strategy, if you do not see the correct answer right away, is to negate that answer choice and if it causes the argument to fall apart then that is the assumption that is required by the argument. When I say negate, I mean the logical opposite. In this case this is the wording I used to negate answer choice 'A': "No very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tended to continue to consume substantially more calories than do people whose weight is at that level."
Relatively few is the same as "some" (at least one or more) and the logical opposite of that is "None". If you take this negated statement and apply it to the argument, the argument does not follow. What the statement says is that the people who are overweight and are have lost weight and are now thin, none of them continue to eat more calories than those who are naturally at the same weight level. From there, you can conclude that if they do not eat more calories than those people who are naturally at that weight, then they may not regain the weight as the argument stated.
Again, if an assumption is negated and it shows that the argument does not follow with such a statement, then the original statement, in this instance the answer choice, is the assumption on which the argument relies.
Does this make sense?
Reason: With an assumption question, the best strategy, if you do not see the correct answer right away, is to negate that answer choice and if it causes the argument to fall apart then that is the assumption that is required by the argument. When I say negate, I mean the logical opposite. In this case this is the wording I used to negate answer choice 'A': "No very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tended to continue to consume substantially more calories than do people whose weight is at that level."
Relatively few is the same as "some" (at least one or more) and the logical opposite of that is "None". If you take this negated statement and apply it to the argument, the argument does not follow. What the statement says is that the people who are overweight and are have lost weight and are now thin, none of them continue to eat more calories than those who are naturally at the same weight level. From there, you can conclude that if they do not eat more calories than those people who are naturally at that weight, then they may not regain the weight as the argument stated.
Again, if an assumption is negated and it shows that the argument does not follow with such a statement, then the original statement, in this instance the answer choice, is the assumption on which the argument relies.
Does this make sense?
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
(
Please share your idea and your reasoning
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
- tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
This CR exhibit a language shift.aj5105 wrote:Researchers have found that when very overweight people, who tend to have relatively low metabolic rates,
lose weight primarily through dieting, their metabolisms generally remain unchanged. They will thus burn
significantly fewer calories at the new weight than do people whose weight is normally at that level. Such
newly thin persons will, therefore, ultimately regain weight until their body size again matches their metabolic
rate.
The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Relatively few very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tend to continue to consume
substantially fewer calories than do people whose normal weight is at that level.
(B) The metabolisms of people who are usually not overweight are much more able to vary than the metabolisms of
people who have been very overweight.
(C) The amount of calories that a person usually burns in a day is determined more by the amount that is
consumed that day than by the current weight of the individual.
(D) Researchers have not yet determined whether the metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be
accelerated by means of chemical agents.
(E) Because of the constancy of their metabolic rates, people who are at their usual weight normally have as much
difficulty gaining weight as they do losing it.
The premise is about X: BURNING SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER CALORIES.
The conclusion is about Y: REGAINING THE LOST WEIGHT.
The assumption is that X is connected to Y: that BURNING SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER CALORIES leads to REGAINING THE LOST WEIGHT.
What would WEAKEN the argument?
If the newly thin people STOPPED EATING altogether.
Clearly, if the new thinly people FASTED -- if they CONSUMED no calories at all -- they would not gain any weight.
Thus, for the conclusion to be valid, it must be true that the newly thinly people and the normally thin people CONSUME the same number of calories.
Answer choice A states what the argument assumes: that relatively FEW very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tend to continue to CONSUME SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER CALORIES than do people whose normal weight is at that level.
If A is negated, the argument falls apart:
ALMOST ALL very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight...CONSUME SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER CALORIES.
If the newly thin people consume fewer calories, then they won't gain back the weight, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.
The correct answer is A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
- tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members
Can you guide me how to negate effectively:GMATGuruNY wrote: Answer choice A states what the argument assumes: that relatively FEW very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tend to continue to CONSUME SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER CALORIES than do people whose normal weight is at that level.
If A is negated, the argument falls apart:
ALMOST ALL very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight...CONSUME SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER CALORIES.
If the newly thin people consume fewer calories, then they won't gain back the weight, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.
The correct answer is A.
I studied from MGMAT the tech of negate include:
Always, only, all => Not necessarily, sometimes ... not
Never, none, not one, not once => at least one or at least once
Some, a few, several => no or none
Sometimes ,on occasion, often => never
In this case, negate "few" to "no" does not work, doesn't it?
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
A few means "a small number of".tuanquang269 wrote:Can you guide me how to negate effectively:GMATGuruNY wrote: Answer choice A states what the argument assumes: that relatively FEW very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight tend to continue to CONSUME SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER CALORIES than do people whose normal weight is at that level.
If A is negated, the argument falls apart:
ALMOST ALL very overweight people who have dieted down to a new weight...CONSUME SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER CALORIES.
If the newly thin people consume fewer calories, then they won't gain back the weight, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.
The correct answer is A.
I studied from MGMAT the tech of negate include:
Always, only, all => Not necessarily, sometimes ... not
Never, none, not one, not once => at least one or at least once
Some, a few, several => no or none
Sometimes ,on occasion, often => never
In this case, negate "few" to "no" does not work, doesn't it?
Thus, the negation of a few is "NOT a small number of"
"Not a SMALL number" could mean NONE or MANY, depending on the context.
In answer choice A, the key word is RELATIVELY.
RELATIVELY few means a SMALL FRACTION.
Thus, the negation of relatively few is RELATIVELY MANY -- in other words, a LARGE fraction of the whole group.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
- tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
i received a pm regarding this thread.
i.e., if you need to negate a statement, don't worry about "rules for negation" -- just use your common sense and think about what it would mean for the statement to be false.
example:
All Filipinos are short.
--> To make this false, we only need to find one Filipino who isn't short. Therefore, the negation of this statement is There is at least one Filipino who is not short.
If I fail the test, I will have to repeat the 10th grade.
--> This statement is only concerned with what happens if i fail the test, so any event that happens if i pass the test is irrelevant to the statement (and also to its negation).
To make this statement false, we need a situation in which the hypothetical is still true -- i.e., I fail the test -- but in which the outcome is the reverse of what the statement says. Therefore, the negation of this statement is Even if I fail the test, I won't (necessarily) have to repeat the 10th grade.
you really shouldn't need or want formal rules for negation! you've probably had the correct intuition since you were a child, but trying to do it with rules is nearly impossible, and certainly impractical.
this is one of those things for which it's almost impossible to give simple rules that can be memorized, but that is mostly pretty easy if you just use your real-world common sense.tuanquang269 wrote: Can you guide me how to negate effectively:
I studied from MGMAT the tech of negate include:
Always, only, all => Not necessarily, sometimes ... not
Never, none, not one, not once => at least one or at least once
Some, a few, several => no or none
Sometimes ,on occasion, often => never
In this case, negate "few" to "no" does not work, doesn't it?
i.e., if you need to negate a statement, don't worry about "rules for negation" -- just use your common sense and think about what it would mean for the statement to be false.
example:
All Filipinos are short.
--> To make this false, we only need to find one Filipino who isn't short. Therefore, the negation of this statement is There is at least one Filipino who is not short.
If I fail the test, I will have to repeat the 10th grade.
--> This statement is only concerned with what happens if i fail the test, so any event that happens if i pass the test is irrelevant to the statement (and also to its negation).
To make this statement false, we need a situation in which the hypothetical is still true -- i.e., I fail the test -- but in which the outcome is the reverse of what the statement says. Therefore, the negation of this statement is Even if I fail the test, I won't (necessarily) have to repeat the 10th grade.
you really shouldn't need or want formal rules for negation! you've probably had the correct intuition since you were a child, but trying to do it with rules is nearly impossible, and certainly impractical.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
Small doubt in negation. I tried negating D .
(D) Researchers have not yet determined whether the metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be accelerated by means of chemical agents.
=> Researchers have determined that metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be accelerated by means of chemical agents.
I thought - if this true then the formerly overweight person wont regain his weight.
Please help in identifying the flaw in my negation / assumption.
(D) Researchers have not yet determined whether the metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be accelerated by means of chemical agents.
=> Researchers have determined that metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be accelerated by means of chemical agents.
I thought - if this true then the formerly overweight person wont regain his weight.
Please help in identifying the flaw in my negation / assumption.
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
nope.jaguar123 wrote:(D) Researchers have not yet determined whether the metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be accelerated by means of chemical agents.
=> Researchers have determined that metabolic rates of formerly very overweight individuals can be accelerated by means of chemical agents.
the original statement is "We don't know WHETHER x is true."
if this statement is false, it doesn't mean that x is definitely true! it just means that we know WHETHER x is true.
in other words, the negation of this statement is "researchers have determined whether the metabolic rates..." -- in other words, they now have the answer. however, we still don't know whether the answer is actually yes or no; you've basically just made up a yes answer at random.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron