Columnist: People should avoid using a certain artificial

[vietst]

Columnist: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat that has been touted as a resource for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake. Although the artificial fat, which can be used in place of fat in food preparation, has none of the negative health effects of fat, it does have a serious drawback: it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body.

In evaluating the columnist's position, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether increasing one's intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat
(B) Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat
(C) Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health
(D) Whether there are any foods that cannot be prepared using the artificial fat as a substitute for other fats
(E) Whether people are generally able to detect differences in taste between foods prepared using the artificial fat and foods that are similar except for the use of other fats
OA is A.
Thanks for your explaination

[RonPurewal]

you need to boil the columnist's position down to its essence, which is basically this:
fat absorbs vitamins that are essential.
therefore, body doesn't get vitamins.
therefore, bad news.

the second 'therefore' here is unassailable (it's definitely bad news if your body doesn't get vitamins), so the only thing that might sway the argument in one direction or the other is the first 'therefore'. if we could break the connection between absorption of vitamins and robbing the body of vitamins, then we could possibly destroy the argument.

choice a breaks the connection, because it introduces the possibility that the body might get the vitamins anyway, despite the absorption of some of those vitamins by the fat.

b is irrelevant, as it doesn't matter where the vitamins come from (only whether they're properly absorbed)

c is irrelevant, as the possible dangers of low-fat diets don't affect the above line of reasoning (the dangers of the artificial fat) at all

d is irrelevant: which foods can contain the artificial fat has nothing to do with whether it will rob the body of vitamins

e is irrelevant: taste has no bearing on the discussion at hand

hope that helps.

[pradeepchandy]

it was mentioned by ROn

"if you see "Which of the following would be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument", then you should think of the same sorts of things you'd consider in a STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN problem."

If I think of the question as strenghten /weaken problem then B means that by replacing fat - source of vitamin - with artificial fat - absorber of vitamins - leads to lesser vitamin in body after the switch to artifical fat.

Hence it strengthens the columnist argument that
"body doesn't get vitamins. " on switching from <natural> fat to artificial fat

by this reasoning B is correct


moreover in I think A seems incorrect because

1) taking new sources of vitamins is irrelevant to the argument - it does not even mention about new sources of vitamins in the question stem?

2) lets say answer to question in option A is yes
i.e. increasing vitamins helps to compensate for effects of artifical fat
then how does it impact the argument

Even if a solution existed for a problem , does not mean that the problem does not exist

for e.g
running leads to low blood sugar
low blood sugar can be cured by drinking glucose

does not mean that running does not lead to low blood sugar

also even if I keep drinking glucose always -
does not mean that running does not lead to low blood sugar

replace
running = consumption of artifical fat
blood sugar = vitamins in body
drinking glucose = sources of vitamin

the second 'therefore' here is unassailable (it's definitely bad news if your body doesn't get vitamins), so the only thing that might sway the argument in one direction or the other is the first 'therefore'. if we could break the connection between absorption of vitamins and robbing the body of vitamins, then we could possibly destroy the argument.
.

[tim]

it was mentioned by ROn

"if you see "Which of the following would be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument", then you should think of the same sorts of things you'd consider in a STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN problem."

If I think of the question as strenghten /weaken problem then B means that by replacing fat - source of vitamin - with artificial fat - absorber of vitamins - leads to lesser vitamin in body after the switch to artifical fat.

Hence it strengthens the columnist argument that
"body doesn't get vitamins. " on switching from <natural> fat to artificial fat

by this reasoning B is correct

No. B doesn't SAY anything, first off. All five choices simply describe questions we might want to know the answer to. But even if the question B asks were answered in the way you assume, that still does nothing more than confirm what we already know about getting less vitamins FROM THAT SOURCE. We still don't know that there will be "bad news" unless the vitamins can't be replaced some other way..

moreover in I think A seems incorrect because

1) taking new sources of vitamins is irrelevant to the argument - it does not even mention about new sources of vitamins in the question stem?

The question asks what must be evaluated. This is almost an exact synonym for "what information do you need that was NOT MENTIONED in the argument". In other words, you HAVE to look for something outside the scope of the argument in a question like this..

2) lets say answer to question in option A is yes
i.e. increasing vitamins helps to compensate for effects of artifical fat
then how does it impact the argument

Even if a solution existed for a problem , does not mean that the problem does not exist

for e.g
running leads to low blood sugar
low blood sugar can be cured by drinking glucose

does not mean that running does not lead to low blood sugar

also even if I keep drinking glucose always -
does not mean that running does not lead to low blood sugar

You're right, but you've missed Ron's point. The columnist issued this warning in an attempt to avoid the "bad news" part at the end of Ron's condensed argument. No one is denying that running leads to low blood sugar any more than they are denying that the artificial fat absorbs vitamins. However, if there is a way to replace the blood sugar or vitamins, then we have nevertheless successfully avoided the "bad news"..

[write2fraz]

We can make a weaken question out of it.

Conclusion : "People should avoid using a certain artificial fat"
Premise :
#01 artificial fat that has been touted as a resource for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake
#02 : Although the artificial fat, which can be used in place of fat in food preparation, has none of the negative health effects of fat, it does have a serious drawback: it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body.

we can challange the premise and provide alternate soruce of reasoning by using option 'A'...

"Increasing one's intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat" , so "People should avoid using a certain artificial fat"

[RonPurewal]

it is true that "evaluate" problems can generally be converted into weakening (or strengthening) problems.
generally, all that's necessary to do so is to change the "whether" into an actual yes/no.

[praachiee]

Ron

According to me, the conclusion in this argument is:People should avoid using a certain artificial fat that has been touted as a resource for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake

And it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body. , is the premise which is helping the conclusion.

According to my understanding, in evaluate questions, the answer should affect the conclusion. Could you explain how A affects the conclusion here.
I selected C here,my reasoning:
low fat intake endangers health?Yes: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat weakened
low fat intake endangers health?No: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat strengthened

I see A is affecting just the premise. Am I missing something? Or can an answer help in evaluating a premise as well?

[jnelson0612]

Ron

According to me, the conclusion in this argument is:People should avoid using a certain artificial fat that has been touted as a resource for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake

And it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body. , is the premise which is helping the conclusion.

According to my understanding, in evaluate questions, the answer should affect the conclusion. Could you explain how A affects the conclusion here.
I selected C here,my reasoning:
low fat intake endangers health?Yes: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat weakened
low fat intake endangers health?No: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat strengthened

I see A is affecting just the premise. Am I missing something? Or can an answer help in evaluating a premise as well?

Hi praachiee,
Whenever you have an Evaluate the Conclusion question, you want to stick as closely to the premises and the conclusion as possible. Let's review the argument:
Conclusion: People should not use the fat substitute.
WHY?
Premise: The fat substitute absorbs certain essential vitamins, thus the body cannot use them.

So the argument is telling us not to use the fat substitute BECAUSE then the body will not get certain essential vitamins from food.

What am I assuming? That there is no other reasonable way to obtain these vitamins. I read this and immediately thought, well, what about vitamin supplements?

Answer Choice A directly addresses this assumption: if one can take additional vitamins this weakens the argument. If one cannot take additional vitamins then the argument is strengthened.

Answer Choice C is out of scope. It is not addressing the link between the premise and the conclusion. Also, note that we don't know if this substitute will cause an "extremely low fat intake". It just appears to replace some fats.

I hope that this helps and let us know if we can explain further.

[lemonperb]

Hi GMAT instructors,
What if B is changed into:"Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that not contain the fat "
Because artificial fat is used to replace food contains fat, so artificial fat makes influence to food without fat.
But if there are no vitamins in those no-fat food, no vitamins for artificial fat to absorb.

b is irrelevant, as it doesn't matter where the vitamins come from (only whether they're properly absorbed)

if no vitamins are presented, surely they cannot be properly absorbed. Please correct me.

[RonPurewal]

Your new version is a non-contribution, since it is something that is already 100% guaranteed to be true.

The artificial fat is artificial. I.e., it is not something that normally exists in nature.

The vitamin is a thing that exists in the natural world. Therefore, it must exist in natural (= non-artificial) foods.

[lemonperb]

Your new version is a non-contribution, since it is something that is already 100% guaranteed to be true.

The artificial fat is artificial. I.e., it is not something that normally exists in nature.

The vitamin is a thing that exists in the natural world. Therefore, it must exist in natural (= non-artificial) foods.

I see. Thank you Ron!
I am working really hard at thinking in a reasonable way. But it seems that what I am thinking about always miss the point.

[RonPurewal]

You just have to ditch the idea that this is any sort of "academic" exercise.

The key to CR is to use the same sort of thinking that you'd use every day on the street.

[gmatkiller_24]

can we solve this problem by drawing a diagram?

the artificial fat absorb vitamin → we should avoid using it.

only choice A has something to do with this relationship. others are quickly out

[RonPurewal]

can we solve this problem by drawing a diagram?

totally an individual issue.
if you find diagrams helpful, then draw them. if you find them unhelpful, don't draw them.

[RonPurewal]

i personally don't like diagrams in CR because, in my experience, "diagramming" an argument makes it much more difficult to think in simple real-life terms ("have a conversation" / "insert myself into the situation" / "explain to a 9-year-old").

but that's just my experience, and i'm not you. your experience may be totally different.