MGMAT questionable CR

[abhi75]

Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups had been the same before the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

The answer to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole grains above?

a) Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?

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

c) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?

d) Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?

e) Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?


Here the OA is B but there is no mention of exercise program in the stimulus. It maybe still be possible to achieve the results just by eating wholegrains and not doing any exercise.

Can anyone justify the answer choice B. I have never seen these kind of problems in OG12th or 11th Ed. The correct answer just strikes out to be correct.

I also saw a few of RC problems that were debatable for the right choice.

[hmboy17]

I agree with you that OG dont have questions like this but I have faced such questions on various test.
Let see the choices-
a) Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day? ( Now this you expect after reading the passage so I discard this option)

b) Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program? Only choice which make sense and if assumed correctly then support the conclusion)

c) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication? (Medication may be another technique to lower down the cholesterol level but not related with our question)

d) Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months? (We are not concerned about after 6 months results)

e) Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains? (Not related to the question, discard this choice)

My strategy to handle such a question will be just like finding assumption in CR question. Once you find the assumption then present that assumption in question format. Hope this helps you.

[rs2010]

I dont feel there is any problem with the question. However, it is certainly different from what we see in OG

I narrowed down to B and E and selected B because E talks about consumers in general.

[amazonviper]

Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups had been the same before the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

The answer to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole grains above?

a) Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?

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

c) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?

d) Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?

e) Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?


Here the OA is B but there is no mention of exercise program in the stimulus. It maybe still be possible to achieve the results just by eating wholegrains and not doing any exercise.

Can anyone justify the answer choice B. I have never seen these kind of problems in OG12th or 11th Ed. The correct answer just strikes out to be correct.

I also saw a few of RC problems that were debatable for the right choice.

This questions is actually rather simple.
a) Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?--> The passage already shows that it is realistic to have whole grains 3 times a day.

b) Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?--> We already know the comparison between two groups of people and the effect.To make the conclusion valid, all other conditions must be the same (other activities). If the group who ate the whole grains ran 10 miles a day and the others did not , then this conclusion that eating grains lowers cholesterol is not valid. If "B" is true, then under same conditions eating whole grains seems to help lower cholesterol.

c) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?--> This is not our concern . We are not trying to find alternatives.

d) Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?->Out of context since the study is primarily concerned about lowering cholesterol by eating whole grains.

e) Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?--> We do not care about awareness.

I apologize for being wordy, but I tried to me as clear as possible.
Hope this helps.

[lav]

I agree the ques is easy
NOTE that the question stem says

The answer to which of the following questions, if true,

so the ques stem ALLOWS you to bring in new knowledge. Its like (i) read option (ii) assume to be true (Iii) see effect on stimulus.

[melguy]

b) Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?--> We already know the comparison between two groups of people and the effect.To make the conclusion valid, all other conditions must be the same (other activities). If the group who ate the whole grains ran 10 miles a day and the others did not , then this conclusion that eating grains lowers cholesterol is not valid. If "B" is true, then under same conditions eating whole grains seems to help lower cholesterol.

c) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?--> This is not our concern . We are not trying to find alternatives.

I find b and c both equally important. What if someone is taking medication VS what if someone is exercising seems to have equal weightage. I don't understand either your reasoning or the official explanation to reject C.

[avik.ch]

Here the OA is B but there is no mention of exercise program in the stimulus. It maybe still be possible to achieve the results just by eating wholegrains and not doing any exercise.

Yes !! I dont see any debate here. No test prep materials can be debatable.

Evaluating problem is just an extension of strengthen and weakening problem.
Apply yes/no test : if one will weaken it the other should strenghten it. So evaluating an argument works in a same way as strengthen/weaken of an argument. Hence we can bring outside knowledge in this kind of problem. How can we strengthen/weaken an argument, without bringing anything from outside ? Not possible

Here the conclusion present a causal relationship -

eating whole grains ( cause ) -------------- appreciable effect on cholesterol levels ( effect )

A causality can be weakened in three ways :

1. showing that a different cause will result in the effect.
2. Inverse the cause and effect relationship.
3. Show that the cause or effect are two independent events.

B exactly does this :

Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program ? - no : If one groups exercise more than the other, then the result of cauality will not hold as there will be another cause ( more exercise) for the stated effect(appreciable effect on cholesterol levels) . This is the weakener

Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program ? - yes : There can be no other cause for the stated effect according to the stimulus. This is the strengthening statement.

I do not see any competitor here, B is the clear winner.

Please note : There can be thousand other cause for the stated effect. But when the author is pesenting the conclusion he is assuming that all other cause cannot stand for the stated effect. This is an assumtion in a defender role. So in this type we are allowed to bring concept(thousand cause) from outside.

I have never seen these kind of problems in OG12th or 11th Ed. The correct answer just strikes out to be correct.

I have seen many problem in OG-12 CR based on this concept.

I also saw a few of RC problems that were debatable for the right choice

My RC skills are limited but OG problem cannot be debatable. They have to be correct. We have to change our line of thoughts according to OG.

Hope this helps !!

[tuanquang269]

Evaluate is kind of both strengthen and weaken question. So, the new information is acceptable. Choice B makes sense because it proposes another CAUSE to the EFFECT. So, it correct one.

[[email protected]]

Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups had been the same before the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

The answer to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole grains above?

a) Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?

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

c) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?

d) Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?

e) Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?


Yes avi75, I can understand as this is 700 level question.

This is basically a causal reasoning and you have to evaluate the causal part.

How will you evaluate the causal part by either actually making the argument air tight.

That is to ensure whether some other parameter or some other condition does not show the effect and hence make the cause as the only effect rather than something else making happen the cause...

the same exercise program did not have the actual meaning of an exercise program, but all it meant was whether both the groups were not engaged in the same type of an environment or no. there were same parameters arround them or no etc etc....


Hope this explanation helped......

[gauraku]

Here the conclusion present a causal relationship -

eating whole grains ( cause ) -------------- appreciable effect on cholesterol levels ( effect )

A causality can be weakened in three ways :

1. showing that a different cause will result in the effect.
2. Inverse the cause and effect relationship.
3. Show that the cause or effect are two independent events.

B exactly does this :

Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program ? - no : If one groups exercise more than the other, then the result of cauality will not hold as there will be another cause ( more exercise) for the stated effect(appreciable effect on cholesterol levels) . This is the weakener

Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program ? - yes : There can be no other cause for the stated effect according to the stimulus. This is the strengthening statement.

I do not see any competitor here, B is the clear winner.

Hi Avik,

Using the same reasoning:

eating whole grains ( cause ) -------------- appreciable effect on cholesterol levels <ECL>( effect )

if i do variation test with option C, is it fine to say: Medication (cause) -- ECL (effect)

if NO then conclusion is strengthened if YES then conclusion is weakened.

OR

As per choice C, is the effect something else (drop in cholesterol rather effect on cholesterol level).. confused..

I eliminated C because It does nothing to adress differences between the first and second group but thought of clarifying my cause and effect reasoning..

Thanks

[avik.ch]

Using the same reasoning:

eating whole grains ( cause ) -------------- appreciable effect on cholesterol levels <ECL>( effect )

if i do variation test with option C, is it fine to say: Medication (cause) -- ECL (effect)

if NO then conclusion is strengthened if YES then conclusion is weakened.

OR

As per choice C, is the effect something else (drop in cholesterol rather effect on cholesterol level).. confused..

I eliminated C because It does nothing to adress differences between the first and second group but thought of clarifying my cause and effect reasoning..

Thanks

This is related to the scope of the argument.

Smoking ( cause)--------> kills ( effect)

Now, when we are supposed to weaken it - we cannot just say :

taking poison ( cause)-----> kills ( effect )

this shows alterative cause, but this is not what the argument talks about. The domain of the stimulus is limited - the circumstances should be the same.

But, if we say :

taking nicotine while smoking ----> kills : this is an apt weakener. This too shows an alternative cause, but the circumstances are same.

I hope this helps !!

[gauraku]

Definitely it helps.. Thanks buddy..