Question Type:
Explain a Result
Stimulus Breakdown:
Expected: Since lead is dangerous, doctors wouldn't recommend something with lead in it.
Unexpected: Some doctors say Calcium + Lead is better than no Calcium.
Answer Anticipation:
The comparison here is between Calcium/Lead and No Calcium, so I'd expect the answer to deal with why, for some people, missing calcium is more dangerous than having lead. That said, I'd be open to any answer that talks about why no calcium would be particularly dangerous, or why these Calcium/Lead supplements aren't too bad.
Correct answer:
(E)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. Fruits and veggies containing small amounts of lead doesn't factor into a comparison between Calcium and Lead.
(B) Out of scope. This answer doesn't explain why doctors would rather have some people eating lead than missing calcium.
(C) Even if there are other threats, lead is still a threat, so this answer doesn't get us any closer to understanding why doctors are recommending something with lead in it.
(D) Opposite. If anything, this makes the recommendation seem even worse! While a high-calcium diet and taking a calcium supplement aren't the same thing, it still seems as if this answer is suggesting a Calcium/Lead supplement is dangerous.
(E) Bingo. If someone doesn’t get enough calcium, they end up releasing lead into their bloodstreams. While we don't know if that amount is higher than the amount in the supplements, it could be, and so it explains why doctors might make this recommendation in some cases (the cases where the amount likely to be released is higher than the level of lead in the supplement).
Takeaway/Pattern:
For Explain a Result questions, stay flexible in the answer choices. Also, you don't need a "perfect"/logically airtight answer.
#officialexplanation