An assumption question - salt cause high blood pressure,

[zoe]

Dear All,
I need your help to clarify why answer C is irrelevant. Here is the question:
Which of the following most logically completes the argument given below?

People in isolated rain-forest communities tend to live on a largely vegetarian diet, and they eat little salt. Few of them suffer from high blood pressure, and their blood pressure does not tend to increase with age, as is common in industrialized countries. Such people often do develop high blood pressure when they move to cities and adopt high-salt diets. Though suggestive, these facts do not establish salt as the culprit in high blood pressure, however, because .

(A) genetic factors could account for the lack of increase of blood pressure with age among such people
(B) people eating high-salt diets and living from birth in cities in industrialized societies generally have a tendency to have high blood pressure
(C) it is possible to have a low-salt diet while living in a city in an industrialized country
(D) there are changes in other aspects of diet when such people move to the city
(E) salt is a necessity for human life, and death can occur when the body loses too much salt


OG explain:
Situation People in isolated communities who eat low-salt diets tend not to have high blood pressure or to experience age-related increases in blood pressure. When these people move to industrialized areas and adopt high-salt diets, many do develop high blood pressure. Nevertheless, (for a reason the argument omits) one cannot conclude that salt causes high blood pressure.

I got the idea that we need a factor to render the conclusion that salt is not responsible for high blood pressure.

I can understand the correct answer is (D), but I am have no idea about the reason of cross off (C)from OG.
OG explanation for answer (C)
the argument is concerned with what happens when people from rain-forest communities move to cities and adopt high-salt diets, so the fact that it is possible to have a low-salt diet in city is not relevant.

wait, this is because of "possible" why cross off (C)? but what we need is a reason, "possible" indicates the reason,
I am confused,

anyone here help me?

thanks a lot
have a nice day.

[ceilidh.erickson]

It's important to pay attention to the specific language given. In the passage, we're told that "such people OFTEN develop high blood pressure when the move to cities." This already implies that it doesn't happen 100% of the time.

If we want a reason that salt is NOT the culprit, we need to establish another possible culprit.

(A) genetic factors could account for the lack of increase of blood pressure with age among such people

If so, this doesn't help account for the change in blood pressure when these people move to cities.

(B) people eating high-salt diets and living from birth in cities in industrialized societies generally have a tendency to have high blood pressure

We're not talking about those people. We're only talking about the ones who had low blood pressure before moving to cities, but high blood pressure afterwards.

(C) it is possible to have a low-salt diet while living in a city in an industrialized country

We already know that it's possible. The word "often" in the prompt already implies that not *everyone* gets high blood pressure after moving to the city. This doesn't account for WHY some people do get high blood pressure after moving to the city. If salt isn't the culprit, what is? This doesn't help us there.

(D) there are changes in other aspects of diet when such people move to the city

Aha! If there were other changes *besides* salt, then salt might not be the culprit! It might be something else in the diet that changed. This is the correct answer.

(E) salt is a necessity for human life, and death can occur when the body loses too much salt

This has nothing to do with blood pressure whatsoever.

Does this help to explain why C doesn't fit?

[zoe]

It's important to pay attention to the specific language given. In the passage, we're told that "such people OFTEN develop high blood pressure when the move to cities." This already implies that it doesn't happen 100% of the time.

If we want a reason that salt is NOT the culprit, we need to establish another possible culprit.

(C) it is possible to have a low-salt diet while living in a city in an industrialized country

We already know that it's possible. The word "often" in the prompt already implies that not *everyone* gets high blood pressure after moving to the city. This doesn't account for WHY some people do get high blood pressure after moving to the city. If salt isn't the culprit, what is? This doesn't help us there.

Does this help to explain why C doesn't fit?

Thanks so much for your explanation, it helps me a lot. Especially the word "OFTEN".

i have a further question about (C).but i am not 100% sure, i need your confirmation.
here "possible"in (C) describes a fact instead of a reason, right?

[seueth]

It's important to pay attention to the specific language given. In the passage, we're told that "such people OFTEN develop high blood pressure when the move to cities." This already implies that it doesn't happen 100% of the time.

If we want a reason that salt is NOT the culprit, we need to establish another possible culprit.

(A) genetic factors could account for the lack of increase of blood pressure with age among such people

If so, this doesn't help account for the change in blood pressure when these people move to cities.

(B) people eating high-salt diets and living from birth in cities in industrialized societies generally have a tendency to have high blood pressure

We're not talking about those people. We're only talking about the ones who had low blood pressure before moving to cities, but high blood pressure afterwards.

(C) it is possible to have a low-salt diet while living in a city in an industrialized country

We already know that it's possible. The word "often" in the prompt already implies that not *everyone* gets high blood pressure after moving to the city. This doesn't account for WHY some people do get high blood pressure after moving to the city. If salt isn't the culprit, what is? This doesn't help us there.

(D) there are changes in other aspects of diet when such people move to the city

Aha! If there were other changes *besides* salt, then salt might not be the culprit! It might be something else in the diet that changed. This is the correct answer.

(E) salt is a necessity for human life, and death can occur when the body loses too much salt

This has nothing to do with blood pressure whatsoever.

Does this help to explain why C doesn't fit?

Hi Ceilidh

Even though I got the answer correct, I had a real tough time understanding what is being sought.
The phrasing, "Though suggestive,......, however, because ....",
put me in a spin.

Can you please help me to understand why this implied that we are looking for an answer which would provide us another cause for the BP to be higher. As I read it, the facts do not establish salt as the culprit , however something else should put salt as the culprit.

It took me quite some time to get through the question and finally answered D as no other answer gave me reasoning to support my approach.

[nchaswal]

Thanks so much for your explanation, it helps me a lot. Especially the word "OFTEN".

i have a further question about (C).but i am not 100% sure, i need your confirmation.
here "possible"in (C) describes a fact instead of a reason, right?

Possibility tells that the fact MIGHT be true. When you say , it is possible that I shout too loud, you are telling the other person that you are not DENYING that that behaviour did not happen. It could have or it could not have.

So the "possible" in (C) is just indicating that a person can or maybe cannot get a low salt diet in the industrialized city.

Possible makes different options available. It cannot be taken as a FACT though.

[nchaswal]

It's important to pay attention to the specific language given. In the passage, we're told that "such people OFTEN develop high blood pressure when the move to cities." This already implies that it doesn't happen 100% of the time.

Can you please help me to understand why this implied that we are looking for an answer which would provide us another cause for the BP to be higher. As I read it, the facts do not establish salt as the culprit , however something else should put salt as the culprit.

It took me quite some time to get through the question and finally answered D as no other answer gave me reasoning to support my approach.

It certainly is a queer presence of however.

Expert help please !!!

[ceilidh.erickson]

Hi Ceilidh

Even though I got the answer correct, I had a real tough time understanding what is being sought.
The phrasing, "Though suggestive,......, however, because ....",
put me in a spin.

Can you please help me to understand why this implied that we are looking for an answer which would provide us another cause for the BP to be higher. As I read it, the facts do not establish salt as the culprit , however something else should put salt as the culprit.

It took me quite some time to get through the question and finally answered D as no other answer gave me reasoning to support my approach.

I see what you mean here. One way to read it is "1. THESE facts don't establish salt as the culprit, but some OTHER facts might establish salt as the culprit" rather than "2. these facts do not suggest SALT as the culprit, because there is some other culprit."

I think both of those readings are logically consistent with the syntax of the sentence. So how did I know that I was looking for interpretation #2 rather than #1? (It's often hard to articulate an answer to "why did you interpret X that way?" when interpretation is often automatic / unconscious, so here's my retrospective breakdown).

Imagine that we were seeking to explain who was the "culprit" in stealing diamonds from the jewelry store: "Person X came into the jewelry store at 5:00, and the security camera went out at 5:02. Person X was seen by a bystander leaving the store at 5:10. The jewels were stolen between 5:05 and 5:15. These facts, though suggestive, do not establish Person X as the culprit however, because...."

How would you interpret that? Did Person X do it, but these facts don't suggest it, and other facts do? That wouldn't really make sense - we'd use all facts pointing toward Person X together. We wouldn't treat some facts as more "establishing" than others. So the intuitive way to interpret that is that someone else stole the jewels, not Person X.

Does that help?