#19 - Dietitian: It is true that nutrients are most

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

While the dietitian does not dispute the value of low fat diets, she concludes that eating raw carrots by themselves is not an effective means of obtaining vitamin A, because the body needs some fat to transform beta carotene into vitamin A.

Answer choice (A) This is the correct answer choice. The question stem asks us to examine the role played in the argument by the statement that fat in one's diet is generally unhealthy. Essentially, we are given a reason why fat intake should be limited, but not to the extent that impedes absorption of vitamin A.

Answer choice (B) The only diet the author disfavors, as far as we know, would be a no-fat diet. How often this reason is cited by those who recommend no-fat diets is not discussed.

Answer choice (C) The dietitian is not completely undermining the hypothesis that fat is unhealthy, i.e. she is not arguing that consuming fat is always healthy. In fact, she clearly states that fat in one's diet is generally unhealthy. Her only argument is that some fat is necessary for the body to transform beta carotene into vitamin A. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D) While the statement that fat in one's diet is generally unhealthy is presented alongside the claim that nutrients are most effective when provided by natural foods rather than artificial supplements, one is not evidence for the other. Both statements merely set up the context for the author's main argument. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E) The dietary habit that the dietitian recommends is consuming some fat to help Vitamin A absorption despite the fact that fat is generally unhealthy, not because of it. This answer choice is incorrect.

[avengingangel]

I think this stimulus is worded weirdly (intentionally).

What is the conclusion here? The first sentence/statement in the stimulus, or the statement about the carrots ??

Thanks.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, avenging,

I understand your difficulty with this argument. Part of this difficulty might be caused in part by having an overly rigid view of a conclusion/premises binary in which one tries to fit everything in the stimulus into a conclusion or premises box. In method of reasoning questions, particularly ones that focus on specific parts of the stimulus, you do need to identify a clear conclusion if one is present. Further, if the conclusion is present but implicit, you need to note that as well. However, once you have established the main point of the stimulus, you need to spend most of your effort on describing how the statements in the stimulus link together. In this case, the conclusion (such as it is) would be that one should limit consumption of fat but not eliminate fat entirely. This conclusion is tacit and derived in a somewhat similar manner as the "some skeptics claim...they are wrong" template you are probably familiar with, but not taken to such an extreme (one does need to limit fat, after all).

In situations such as these, I often find it helpful just to ask myself, "So what is this person getting at? What's the big idea here?"

Interestingly, I find that this particular stimulus does not provoke a strong reaction on my part. In some respects it reminds me of Must Be True stimuli in that I can perceive the logical connections and the implicit inference, but the tone is rather subdued.

As a student, I would start by saying to myself, "So what?" after I read this stimulus. Do I care? Okay, so fat's bad, but you need some to get the vitamins from carrots. What role does "Fat's bad" play in this argument? Well, it seems like a premise for something, but something else is restricting it. So my prediction/prephrase is that it is a fact the implications of which are restricted by something else. Notice that I turned this concrete statement into an abstract description of what's going on. Next I match my prephrase to the answer choices. A matches. B is just terrible. C doesn't match; she doesn't try to undermine it completely. D is premised on the student's misunderstanding the conclusion. E is just kinda out there, total nonsense. So you end up with A.

I hope this helps.

[egarcia193]

Hi
I got this one wrong I chose D but I really had a hard time trying to even figure out what the main point/conclusion of the argument even was, I thought it was that natural foods do not always provide more effective nutrients than supplements and thought the mention of fat and carrots were used as evidence to support this claim and I had no idea that the argument was even mainly about fat. Is it possible to better explain this argument in a way that is clearer and why A is right because of this argument?

[Adam Tyson]

That first sentence appears to me to be nothing other than a distraction, or a side issue, egarcia. The author definitely isn't trying to prove that nutrients are most effective when provided by natural foods, because he gives no evidence at all - none! - about the alternative, artificial supplements.

There is an argument here, with one clear premise indicator("since"). The conclusion appears to me to be that carrots by themselves are not an effective source of vitamin A, which is supported by the claim that you need some fat in order to transform beta carotene into vitamin A.

Here's my breakdown of the argument:

Premise: Carrots have beta carotene

Premise: You can't convert beta carotene to vitamin A unless you consume some fat too

Conclusion: Carrots alone aren't enough to get vitamin A

That leaves two statements in the stimulus that are not actually a part of the argument: the first sentence, which plays no role at all but is just present as background information and as a distraction from the real argument; and the claim we were asked about, which is there to place some limits on the the value of fat. It's like a warning - "you need some, but don't go too far because it is generally unhealthy".

The wording of answer A, the correct answer, is pretty awful!I would have preferred something like "it is a general claim that is intended as a warning against taking a recommended dietary practice too far". To me, selecting answer A is not so much about picking a good answer, but about picking the one that I hate the least. Unlike any of the others, it at least captures the idea of not going too far with eating fat.

Not every statement in a stimulus is a part of the argument itself. Sometimes there are statements that the author is trying to disprove; sometimes there are extraneous claims that are not essential to the argument in any way; sometimes there are points conceded by the author that are meant to limit his conclusion; sometimes there are other things. Not everything is always a premise or a conclusion, and Jonathan was right earlier in this thread to caution students against falling into that binary thinking trap.

I hope that helps clear things up a bit!

[cornflakes]

Hi Powerscore,

I can understand the rationale here to work wrong to right, and was able to locate clear issues with B-E in this regard. I did, however, have serious issues with A as well, and feel that it inaccurately describes what the statement does.

The question stem asks us to select the answer that describes the role that the statement "fat in one's diet is generally unhealthy" plays.

A: "It is mentioned as a reason for adopting a dietary practice that the dietitian provides a reason for not carrying to the extreme."

"IT" must be relating to the statement "fat in ones diet is generally unhealthy." The role that this statement plays, however, is not the reason for adopting the dietary practice (consuming a certain degree of fat in order to get beta carotene transformed into vitamin A). Rather, this statement plays the role of the "reason for not carrying (the dietary practice) to the extreme." The reason for adopting the dietary practice is the premise discussing the requirement of some fat content in order to get the beta carotene to turn into vitamin A.

I am really to see how "fat in one's data is generally unhealthy" could possibly be interpreted as a "reason" for adopting a dietary practice that advises the consumption of "at least some fat." If anything, it provides counter evidence to the this dietary practice. Alternatively, I don't see what else could fill the "reason for not carrying the dietary practice to the extreme" other than the idea about fat consumption being unhealthy generally.

Would value your input/advice here. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Yeah, I hated this answer, cornflakes, because the dietary practice we are supposed to adopt is implied rather than explicit. That statement about fat being unhealthy could be used to support a claim that we shouldn't eat much fat in our diet; that's the dietary practice we should adopt but which we should not take to an extreme, since we need at least some fat to get Vitamin A out of carrots. The author never said not to eat fat, but that's the only way I could find to justify answer A the way it is worded.

That's why process of elimination was my best friend on this question. I hated answer A because no such practice was mentioned, just implied. But the other answers were all so much worse that it had to win out. Ugh.