CR

[az780]

Vitamin XYZ has long been a favorite among health food enthusiasts. In a recent large study, those who took large amounts of vitamin XYZ daily for two years showed on average a 40 percent lower risk of heart disease than did members of a control groups. Researchers corrected for differences in relevant health habits, such as diet.
Which one of the following inference is most supported by the passage?
(A) Taking large amount of vitamins is probably worth risking the side effects.
(B) Those who take large doses of vitamin XYZ daily for the next two years will exhibit on average an increase in the likelihood of avoiding heart disease.
(C) Li, who has taken large amounts of vitamin XYZ daily for the past two years, has a 40 percent lower risk.
(D) Taking large amounts of vitamin XYZ daily over the course of one’s adult life should be recommended to most adults.
(E) Health food enthusiasts are probably correct in believing that large daily doses of multiple vitamins promote good health.

please support your answers with line of reasoning

[Guest]

is it B ?

[goMba]

Seems like a tricky one. I would go with A. Usually one doesn't take vitamins to reduce the risk of having a heart disease so this can be a good side effect. Hence i pick A.

I know i am making an additional assumption (not mentioned in the stimulus) but seems like a commonsense assumption. Can someone post the OA?

[Guest]

I think it shud b B

[RonPurewal]

since this study is described as well-founded and controlled, the study's results should be able to be replicated. therefore, whichever answer choice comes closest to simply replicating the results of the study, WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS, will be the correct answer.

(a) side effects aren't mentioned at all in the passage, so this requires additional assumptions.
(b) this basically just says that the results of the study will be repeated - correct.
(c) the 40% is the average of a large group; large-group averages cannot be imputed to individual members of the group. this requires additional assumptions (and assumptions that are dubious, at that).
(d) there's a big difference between 2 years and the entire course of one's adult life, so this requires lots of additional assumptions.
(e) 'good health' is a much more general category than what's described in the passage, so this requires considerable additional assumptions.

b wins.

[RonPurewal]

Seems like a tricky one. I would go with A. Usually one doesn't take vitamins to reduce the risk of having a heart disease so this can be a good side effect. Hence i pick A.

I know i am making an additional assumption (not mentioned in the stimulus) but seems like a commonsense assumption. Can someone post the OA?

worth mentioning that so-called 'commonsense assumptions' are, well, still assumptions. therefore, you're not allowed to make them without adequate support.

you don't have adequate support here.

[TakingGMAT]

I have a doubt.
What role does "Researchers corrected for differences in relevant health habits, such as diet." play in the whole passage.

[Guest]

I go with C. B says "likelihood of avoiding heart disease" while the stimulus says "lower risk of heart disease". Risk and avoid TO ME are a scope shift...

What is the OA?

[JonathanSchneider]

OA is B, as Ron described above. C cannot be right - it is far too out of scope to predict anything about a certain individual who has not yet been mentioned.

"Researchers corrected..." means that they accounted, statistically, for the fact that health food enthusiasts (the people who were studied) are already likely to be healthier BECAUSE they are health food enthusiasts. This is what Ron means above when he says that the study is well-founded and controlled.