#11 - Scientists have long thought that omega-3 fatty acids

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Lawyered,

Just to be clear, this is an Assumption question and not a Justify the Conclusion question.

Remember that an assumption is simply an unstated premise- what must be true in order for the argument to be true. Also remember that arguments that use surveys rely upon the validity of those surveys for these types of questions. And so answer choices which strengthen or assume the survey's soundness, are often the correct answer choice.

This particular stimuli is arguing cause and effect. So it's important to keep in mind that the stimuli (which we accept as true) argues that fish oil consumption actually causes lowered incidence of heart disease. So what the surveyed participants who are eating fish oil are otherwise eating is not relevant to what is necessary for the argument to be true. Rather, what is necessary is eliminating a competing cause for the necessary effect. That effect being lower heart disease.

(D) is also arguably not just eliminating a competing cause, it is also supporting or proving the data used in the premise's survey which is another characteristic of a classic "right" answer choice in a question of this type.

Thanks for the great question!

[egarcia193]

Hi,

I don't understand why B was eliminated because of the development of heart disease and diet which wasn't mentioned in the stimulus, but that that D is the correct answer and talks about exercise and cardiorespiratory health which isn't mentioned in the stimulus so I don't get why B which seems to resemble information in the stimulus the closet is wrong and why D is right when it includes new information not addressed in the stimulus.

[frank.dawson]

Hi,
Would you please explain how negation technique apply to answer choice D ?
Thank you

[Francis O'Rourke]

To logically negate this answer choice simply remove the word "not" from the answer choice. doing so would tell us that the people who eat fish regularly help out their heart health in ways not related to fish. This would provide an alternate explanation for why they suffer fewer heart attacks.

[Blueballoon5%]

Hi BlueBalloon,

I think the key here is the negation technique. Answer choice B, when negated, would read "The test subjects in the recent study who ate fish twice a week DID have a diet that was otherwise conducive to the development of heart disease." If that were true, though, it would make it even more astonishing that the test subjects were nearly 30% less likely to develop heart disease. In other words the negated form of answer choice B is not an attack on the argument, but in fact supports it strongly. Answer choice B, therefore, is incorrect.

Does that help?

Hi Clay! Thanks for answering. I hope you (or someone else) can clarify one thing. When I read answer choice B originally, I think I misread the sentence (my apologizes, English is not my first language). When the answer choice reads, "... conducive to the development of heart disease," does this mean that the diet is harmful to the heart (e.g. a diet of red meat)?

I read the sentence as a diet that helps positively augment cardio-respiratory health (like in answer choice D). Now, I think this was an incorrect reading.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Blueballoon,

Yep, you're spot on. "Conducive to the development of heart disease" means "contributes to the development of heart disease." Hope that helps make Clay's answer clearer.

[Blueballoon5%]

Hi Blueballoon,

Yep, you're spot on. "Conducive to the development of heart disease" means "contributes to the development of heart disease." Hope that helps make Clay's answer clearer.

Thanks Emily!

[Adeline]

Hi,

I have read through the posts and understood the reasoning of why D is correct.
However, I have a minor question and hope you could help clarify.

When I saw "cardiorespiratory health" in answer D, my first reaction was that this could be a shell game, and jumped right to choose B as I was struggling between B and D.
I now understand the reasons why B is incorrect and D is correct, but I just wonder should I be concerned about shell game when doing assumption questions?

Thank you!

[George George]

@Adeline Great Q! Short answer: Yes! You should still be concerned about Shell Game answes when doing Assumption Qs. Long answer: However, an valid Defender Assumption may initially look like a Shell Game answer, but will in fact rule out a potential weakener/counterexample, thereby defending the argument from attack. Learning to spot these answers takes practice, but often comes down to using the Assumption Negation Technique and comparing the answer to the argument's conclusion. BTWs, correct Defender Assumptions are often phrased in the negative, just like answer (D) here ("were not significantly more likely...").