Boldface CR-MGMAT

[ankurmit]

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer. Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3's, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.

The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists' claim.

The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.

The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.

The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.

OA later

[AIM GMAT]

IMO B .

Conclusion of argument : - "A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer."

Boldface 1 : - "Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive," -- AGAINST the conclusion

By this much information we can eliminate A , C , D , E

Now lets analyse option B

Premise : - " the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. "

Premise :- "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all. "


Boldface 2 : - "Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s" -- SUPPORTS the Swedish scientist's claim.



Hence the correct answer must be B.

Hope this helps


Thanks & Regards,
AIM GMAT

[vikram4689]

Scientists attributed lower rate of cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. BUT Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3's. So how can it support the scientists argument

[rjkaufman]

Scientists attributed lower rate of cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. BUT Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3's. So how can it support the scientists argument

vikram, the first sentence reads: "scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer"

So the scientists are comparing the effects against cancer in subjects who eat fatty or lean fish. The scientists attribute the lower rate of cancer to the omega 3's found in FATTY fish. Their conclusion is that those who eat fatty fish are 44% less likely to develop renal cancer. Lean fish has very little omega 3's so those who eat it won't get the benefits.

Thus, the second bolded text does support this claim.

Hope this helps.

[ankurmit]

Yes answer is B\\Thanks everyone.