- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 9020
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:03 am
#26706
Complete Question Explanation
Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (A)
The facts in this stimulus are 1) that everyone should exercise most days; 2) a modest amount can produce dramatic improvement in cardiovascular health; 3) more strenuous/vigorous exercise produces even more of a benefit, but is not absolutely necessary. There is no argument, just this set of facts, and so it is no surprise that we are asked to draw an inference based on the facts. That is the nature of most Must Be True questions. The language in the question stem of "most strongly supported" means that we can accept an answer that is a little less certain, as long as it is a reasonable inference based on the fact set. And of course, we are to select the best answer of the bunch. In this sort of question, that usually means that all four wrong answers have no support at all, while the correct answer has at least some support.
Putting these facts together, we could predict something like "more vigorous exercise most days would probably produce dramatic improvements in cardiovascular health," or "exercising strenuously most days is likely to produce even better results than brisk walking several days per week." These ideas are directly supported by the fact that modest exercise can produce dramatic results and that more vigorous exercise is more effective than modest exercise. It may not be necessary, but it should be really great!
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It matches our prephrase perfectly and follows directly from the facts. No additional assumptions need to be made, no new information is introduced, and the language is not any stronger than the evidence provided in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This answer requires unwarranted speculation on our part. We know that half an hour of brisk walking most days of the week (most = at least 4 days per week) produces dramatic results. Would walking for a longer time on fewer days get the same results? We cannot know this, and must not assume it. Don't treat this like a math problem and think "twice the walking on half the days adds up!" It might not work that way.
Answer choice (C): This answer appears to contradict the facts in the stimulus, and is essentially the opposite of our prephrase. The facts are that more vigorous exercise produces more dramatic results, so brisk walking on most days would not be at least as good as a more strenuous workout on those days.
Answer choice (D): This is far too strong of an answer and has no support at all in the stimulus. It is pure speculation. The stimulus told us only about the effects of exercise, and never even suggested that there were no alternative ways to improve cardiovascular health.
Answer choice (E): Like the previous answer, this one is also too strong and requires speculation and assumptions that we should not be making. Exercise helps, but the stimulus never indicates that it is required. This answer could seem attractive, especially because it appeals to common sense, and because the author did focus exclusively on exercise. It's not like our prephrase, though, and if you had it as a contender and then looked back at the stimulus for support, you wouldn't find any.
Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (A)
The facts in this stimulus are 1) that everyone should exercise most days; 2) a modest amount can produce dramatic improvement in cardiovascular health; 3) more strenuous/vigorous exercise produces even more of a benefit, but is not absolutely necessary. There is no argument, just this set of facts, and so it is no surprise that we are asked to draw an inference based on the facts. That is the nature of most Must Be True questions. The language in the question stem of "most strongly supported" means that we can accept an answer that is a little less certain, as long as it is a reasonable inference based on the fact set. And of course, we are to select the best answer of the bunch. In this sort of question, that usually means that all four wrong answers have no support at all, while the correct answer has at least some support.
Putting these facts together, we could predict something like "more vigorous exercise most days would probably produce dramatic improvements in cardiovascular health," or "exercising strenuously most days is likely to produce even better results than brisk walking several days per week." These ideas are directly supported by the fact that modest exercise can produce dramatic results and that more vigorous exercise is more effective than modest exercise. It may not be necessary, but it should be really great!
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It matches our prephrase perfectly and follows directly from the facts. No additional assumptions need to be made, no new information is introduced, and the language is not any stronger than the evidence provided in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This answer requires unwarranted speculation on our part. We know that half an hour of brisk walking most days of the week (most = at least 4 days per week) produces dramatic results. Would walking for a longer time on fewer days get the same results? We cannot know this, and must not assume it. Don't treat this like a math problem and think "twice the walking on half the days adds up!" It might not work that way.
Answer choice (C): This answer appears to contradict the facts in the stimulus, and is essentially the opposite of our prephrase. The facts are that more vigorous exercise produces more dramatic results, so brisk walking on most days would not be at least as good as a more strenuous workout on those days.
Answer choice (D): This is far too strong of an answer and has no support at all in the stimulus. It is pure speculation. The stimulus told us only about the effects of exercise, and never even suggested that there were no alternative ways to improve cardiovascular health.
Answer choice (E): Like the previous answer, this one is also too strong and requires speculation and assumptions that we should not be making. Exercise helps, but the stimulus never indicates that it is required. This answer could seem attractive, especially because it appeals to common sense, and because the author did focus exclusively on exercise. It's not like our prephrase, though, and if you had it as a contender and then looked back at the stimulus for support, you wouldn't find any.
