Doubt in Manhattan CAT 3 CR

[thapliyalabhi]

In CAT 3, a CR question has been given as:

Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every day.
Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups had been the same before the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

The answer to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole grains above?


(A) Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?

(B) Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?

(C) Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?

(D) Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?

(E) Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?


(B) is the OA. My doubt is if exercise program has not been mentioned in the argument, why should we consider it. I think it has been assumed that answer to the question asked in (B) will be either Yes or No.What if the question asked in answer choice (B) has an answer "the 2 groups were not involved in any kind of exercise". In such a case asking the question given in answer choice (B) would be inconclusive.

Please clarify this doubt.

[Willy]

if the question asked in answer choice (B) has an answer "the 2 groups were not involved in any kind of exercise". In such a case asking the question given in answer choice (B) would be inconclusive.

We just want to know any answer, yes/no or what you have said above and then we have to compare with the what has been said in the argument.

If I take your answer "the 2 groups were not involved in any kind of exercise" even then it is helpful that the group that was on whole grains servings did well and that also without exercise. So whole grains servings did And that's what we want eliminate alternate source.

Answer choice B is the best and correct option.

[thapliyalabhi]

if the question asked in answer choice (B) has an answer "the 2 groups were not involved in any kind of exercise". In such a case asking the question given in answer choice (B) would be inconclusive.

We just want to know any answer, yes/no or what you have said above and then we have to compare with the what has been said in the argument.

If I take your answer "the 2 groups were not involved in any kind of exercise" even then it is helpful that the group that was on whole grains servings did well and that also without exercise. So whole grains servings did And that's what we want eliminate alternate source.

Answer choice B is the best and correct option.

Thanks Willy. One question- Is it ok to bring some new topic(that has not been mentioned at all in the argument) like "exercise" in the answer choice.

[Willy]

Thanks Willy. One question- Is it ok to bring some new topic(that has not been mentioned at all in the argument) like "exercise" in the answer choice.

On certain question types such as this one and strengthen and weaken etc you can bring new info that helps the argument accordingly. Also otherwise how we gonna strengthen or weaken the argument if all the info is already present in the given argument (in fact that would be trap answer choice). So, we need to go for new info but still be in the scope of the argument.

Hope I am making some sense.

[thapliyalabhi]

Thanks Willy. One question- Is it ok to bring some new topic(that has not been mentioned at all in the argument) like "exercise" in the answer choice.

On certain question types such as this one and strengthen and weaken etc you can bring new info that helps the argument accordingly. Also otherwise how we gonna strengthen or weaken the argument if all the info is already present in the given argument (in fact that would be trap answer choice). So, we need to go for new info but still be in the scope of the argument.

Hope I am making some sense.

Yeah Willy, I am getting you. But, on Evaluate the argument questions like these, I have also scene evaluation being done on the basis of what is given in the argument.
E.g--The 2 groups being studied were also involved in the exercise.
And then in the answer choice, we can ask this question "Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?"

I hope you agree with me.

[Willy]

Yeah Willy, I am getting you. But, on Evaluate the argument questions like these, I have also scene evaluation being done on the basis of what is given in the argument.
E.g--The 2 groups being studied were also involved in the exercise.
And then in the answer choice, we can ask this question "Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?"

I hope you agree with me.

I agree with you but notice above (highlighted in blue) 'exercise' and 'same exercise' are in the scope of the topic but still are not the same things. i.e. knowing about whether groups were involved in same exercise program gives us new info that helps us to evaluate argument further.

Am I making some sense? Let me know if you didn't get it and I'll try to explain again. :)

[thapliyalabhi]

Yeah Willy, I am getting you. But, on Evaluate the argument questions like these, I have also scene evaluation being done on the basis of what is given in the argument.
E.g--The 2 groups being studied were also involved in the exercise.
And then in the answer choice, we can ask this question "Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?"

I hope you agree with me.

I agree with you but notice above (highlighted in blue) 'exercise' and 'same exercise' are in the scope of the topic but still are not the same things. i.e. knowing about whether groups were involved in same exercise program gives us new info that helps us to evaluate argument further.

Am I making some sense? Let me know if you didn't get it and I'll try to explain again. :)

:)Willy, the first "exercise" highlighted by you is part of an example given by me. I just wanted to give an eg of a passage that has exercise mentioned in it and then goes on to ask question related to exercise in the answer choice.
In our case, the argument in question does not have exercise mentioned in it.
I hope I am not making things complicated for you.

[Willy]

:)Willy, the first "exercise" highlighted by you is part of an example given by me. I just wanted to give an eg of a passage that has exercise mentioned in it and then goes on to ask question related to exercise in the answer choice.
In our case, the argument in question does not have exercise mentioned in it.
I hope I am not making things complicated for you.

Yes, I knew you have created this exercise example and I was replying to that only.

Even if you are not given any information about exercise but still you can bring it into the argument till the time it is not going much off the argument. Also, please read my earlier posts again.

[RonPurewal]

One question- Is it ok to bring some new topic(that has not been mentioned at all in the argument) like "exercise" in the answer choice.

if you want to "strengthen" or "weaken" (or "help evaluate") an argument, you MUST bring in outside information that has not already been mentioned. it's absolutely a necessity.
if you just repeat or rephrase things that are already contained in the argument, then, by definition, you are not strengthening or weakening or helping to evaluate anything; you are just repeating things.
saying something twice does not make a stronger argument than just saying it once.

(by the way, for questions like this, there's no need to post on a forum and then wait for an answer -- just take a few minutes to flip through the OG, and the answer will become fairly obvious.
if you just look at a handful of strengthen/weaken problems in the OG -- say, even two or three of them -- then it will very quickly become clear that all of the correct answers introduce new ideas.)