GMATPrep CR

[sangeethmani]

A diet high in saturated fats increases a person’s risk of developing heart disease. Regular consumption of red wine reduces that risk. Per-capita consumption of saturated fats is currently about the same in France as in the United States, but there is less heart disease there than in the United States because consumption of red wine is higher in France. The difference in regular red-wine consumption has been narrowing, but no similar convergence in heartdisease rates has occurred.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to account for the lack of convergence noted above?

A. Consumption of saturated fats is related more strongly to the growth of fatty deposits on artery walls, which reduce blood flow to the heart, than it is to heart disease directly.
B. Over the past 30 years, per-capita consumption of saturated fats has remained essentially unchanged in the United States but has increased somewhat in France.
C. Reports of the health benefits of red wine have led many people in the United States to drink red wine regularly.
D. Cigarette smoking, which can also contribute to heart disease, is only slightly more common in France than in the United States. E. Regular consumption of red wine is declining dramatically among young adults in France, and heart disease typically does not manifest itself until middle age.

Hi I am caught between E and B. I am more inclined towards B. Just want to find out.
B:

1. In b we have per capita consumption has remained unchanged in United States and the consumption of red wine has increased.
2. In France the consumption has increased and wine consumption remains the same.

Therefore there is more incidence of heart diseases in France and comparatively lesser in US. Hence there is no convergence.

Is my line of reasoning correct?

I am unable to figure out an explanation for E. Could anyone help me out?

[gpaleksandrov]

The stem says that US and France wine consumption is getting to be same. If young people in France stop drinking wine, then, in order for the wine consumption to be the same as the US, this means that more older people in France drink wine. Since heart disease occurs in middle age, French will have less heart disease.

The answer should be E. What is the OA?

[RonPurewal]

A diet high in saturated fats increases a person’s risk of developing heart disease. Regular consumption of red wine reduces that risk. Per-capita consumption of saturated fats is currently about the same in France as in the United States, but there is less heart disease there than in the United States because consumption of red wine is higher in France. The difference in regular red-wine consumption has been narrowing, but no similar convergence in heartdisease rates has occurred.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to account for the lack of convergence noted above?

A. Consumption of saturated fats is related more strongly to the growth of fatty deposits on artery walls, which reduce blood flow to the heart, than it is to heart disease directly.
B. Over the past 30 years, per-capita consumption of saturated fats has remained essentially unchanged in the United States but has increased somewhat in France.
C. Reports of the health benefits of red wine have led many people in the United States to drink red wine regularly.
D. Cigarette smoking, which can also contribute to heart disease, is only slightly more common in France than in the United States. E. Regular consumption of red wine is declining dramatically among young adults in France, and heart disease typically does not manifest itself until middle age.

Hi I am caught between E and B. I am more inclined towards B. Just want to find out.
B:

1. In b we have per capita consumption has remained unchanged in United States and the consumption of red wine has increased.
2. In France the consumption has increased and wine consumption remains the same.

Therefore there is more incidence of heart diseases in France and comparatively lesser in US. Hence there is no convergence.

Is my line of reasoning correct?

I am unable to figure out an explanation for E. Could anyone help me out?

is this problem actually from the gmat prep software?
i looked on the internet and saw it posted as from "gmat sets", which is NOT the gmat prep software.

therefore, i apologize for the inconvenience, but please post a screenshot of the problem from the actual, original gmat prep software; if you do not do so within a week or two, we'll have to delete the thread.

--

you're looking for a reason why heart disease rates have NOT gotten closer to each other, even though the rates of red wine consumption have gotten closer to each other.

in this respect, choice (b) is actually the worst possible outcome, because it accomplishes exactly the opposite of this end -- choice (b), if true, would be another reason why the gap WOULD narrow.
i.e., you need a reason that would keep the french heart disease rates lower than the american rates, despite the other evidence; choice (b), on the other hand, is a factor that would actually push the french rate closer to the american rate -- exactly the opposite of what you actually want.

choice (e), on the other hand, is exactly the type of explanation that you are looking for: since the onset of heart disease is delayed, this explanation leads to the conclusion that, for the time being, this change in behavior on the part of young adults will have no effect; it won't start to bring the french heart disease rate closer to the corresponding american rate until those young adults reach middle age.

so should be (e)

[VikrantS137]

option E - Trying mathematically

Earlier

In France
Wine consumption - 200,000 people
Heart-disease Cases - 90,000 cases

In USA
Wine consumption - 90,000 people
Heart-disease Cases - 100,000 cases

Difference in red wine consumption = 110,000 people
red wine consumption


Now

In France
Wine consumption - 170,000 people (option E says - consumption of red wine is declining dramatically among young adults in France)
Heart-disease Cases - 90,000 cases (option E says - heart disease typically does not manifest itself until middle age) ; hence no increase in cases after decrease in wine consumption

In USA
Wine consumption - 90,000 people
Heart-disease Cases - 100,000 cases

Difference in red wine consumption = 110,000 people
Difference in red wine consumption = 80,000 people

Hence, even after the difference in regular red wine consumption has narrowed (from 110,000 people earlier to 80,000 people now), no similar convergence in heart-disease rates has occurred.


Experts kindly comment.

[RonPurewal]

those numbers are ... numbers. they don't add value.

the original issue is 'the numbers of wine drinkers are converging. thus we would expect heart-disease rates to converge, but that's not happening. we don't know why.'

the specific numbers don't help, because the numerical aspect is already perfectly clear: the values of thing X are approaching each other, but the values of thing Y aren't.
what's missing is the reason. 'plugging in numbers' will NEVER explain why something happens!

[RonPurewal]

in fact, this type of reasoning is exactly the opposite of what SHOULD happen in these problems.

here, you're taking a conceptual understanding ('the numbers of wine drinkers are converging. thus we would expect heart-disease rates to converge, but that's not happening'), and transforming it into (cumbersome and unhelpful) numbers.

if anything, you should be doing the opposite.
if you were GIVEN numbers, your goal would be to get rid of the numbers, and replace them with a conceptual understanding ('the numbers of wine drinkers are converging. thus we would expect heart-disease rates to converge, but that's not happening').