Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.
The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
A.Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
B.All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
C.The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
D.The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
E.It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.
plz explain yr answer
magmat- natural compond 500-600
This topic has expert replies
- pradeepkaushal9518
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
- Thanked: 33 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.
The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
A.Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
B.All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
C.The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
D.The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
E.It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.
plz explain yr answer
is the answer "D"?
i looked at it by using alternate models causation technique.
pls let me know whats the correct OA
Raunak!
- selango
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
- Thanked: 135 times
- Followed by:7 members
IMO C
Why the advocate comparing echinacea with ephedra?Because they seems to have the comparable side effects.
If they don't have any comparable side effects,the advocate need not bother about echinacea.
Why the advocate comparing echinacea with ephedra?Because they seems to have the comparable side effects.
If they don't have any comparable side effects,the advocate need not bother about echinacea.
--Anand--
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
Anand! dai, the reason i din choose C is because its stated in the passage about Ephedra "the prohibition was unreasonable" which might imply that it may not have grave side effects, contrarily it could be something to do with the government. henceselango wrote:IMO C
Why the advocate comparing echinacea with ephedra?Because they seems to have the comparable side effects.
If they don't have any comparable side effects,the advocate need not bother about echinacea.
IMO D
may be wrong though mate!
- pradeepkaushal9518
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
- Thanked: 33 times
- Followed by:5 members
- kvcpk
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1893
- Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
- Thanked: 215 times
- Followed by:7 members
IMO C.
Advocate is trying to compare the two products. Hence C sounds good.
Here is why others are wrong:
A: Passage links Echinacea and health food stores. But not Ephedra and health food stores.
"government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra" doesnot mean that it is banned in health food stores.
B. Exaggeration. Also, if this is true, it weakens the argument.
D. Advocate doesnt make any statements against the government. Negate this option:
The government should have the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
Will this affect the passage. NO. because, it only says Government has authority.. but not that it should ban.
E. Doesnt interfere with the advocate's words.
Hope this helps!!
Advocate is trying to compare the two products. Hence C sounds good.
Here is why others are wrong:
A: Passage links Echinacea and health food stores. But not Ephedra and health food stores.
"government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra" doesnot mean that it is banned in health food stores.
B. Exaggeration. Also, if this is true, it weakens the argument.
D. Advocate doesnt make any statements against the government. Negate this option:
The government should have the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
Will this affect the passage. NO. because, it only says Government has authority.. but not that it should ban.
E. Doesnt interfere with the advocate's words.
Hope this helps!!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
- Location: Pune, India
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
The conclusion of the argument is
This prohibition is unreasonable. Why it is unreasonable?
Because the two things that are being compared are same. If they are same, then why one is banned and one is not...
I think C should be the answer..
This prohibition is unreasonable. Why it is unreasonable?
Because the two things that are being compared are same. If they are same, then why one is banned and one is not...
I think C should be the answer..
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:3 members
I think the answer is C.pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.
The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
A.Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
B.All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
C.The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
D.The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
E.It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.
plz explain yr answer
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
I too will go with C
The author presents the conclusion that "This prohibition is unreasonable" based on the premises
1. Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound which was prohibited from being sold .
Presents the counter argument that "Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores. "
But the basis of the counter argument is that Ephedra and echinacea have comparable side effects
The author presents the conclusion that "This prohibition is unreasonable" based on the premises
1. Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound which was prohibited from being sold .
Presents the counter argument that "Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores. "
But the basis of the counter argument is that Ephedra and echinacea have comparable side effects