A 2003 USDA study revealed that cinnamon

[thapliyalabhi]

Hi,

I have a doubt in CR question 6 of online question bank. The argument is as below:

A 2003 USDA study revealed that cinnamon may help improve blood sugar and cholesterol levels in people with Type 2 diabetes. The study’s subjects, who were given cinnamon supplements for 40 days, showed significant decreases in levels of glucose, triglycerides, and LDL or "bad" cholesterol. Nevertheless, similar studies conducted more recently have had inconclusive results.

The statements above, if true, provide the most support for which of the following conclusions?

(A) Cinnamon contains antioxidants, which are known to help prevent cardiovascular disease.
(B) Cinnamon may help kill bacteria, fungi, and viruses.
(C) Trials on the benefits of cinnamon have been too small in scope to provide meaningful results.
(D) It is unclear whether cinnamon actually benefits people with Type 2 diabetes.
(E) There are no known disadvantages to taking a cinnamon supplement.

I marked the answer as "E", while the correct answer has been given as "D".

I agree that "D" sounds correct, but would like to know what is wrong with "E". Explanation says statement "E" does not directly relate to the passage. While it does concern cinnamon supplements, it does not have to do with the effect of cinnamon on Type 2 diabetes.

I could not understand this reasoning. Please help me understand this.

[jlucero]

First off, know that with these "draw a conclusion" arguments, you can't go outside the scope of what's given to you. Since the argument doesn't mention anything about disadvantages of cinnamon supplements, you can't conclude anything about this (which is what the answer explanation states).

Beyond that though, notice that the argument talks about what they have found so far about cinnamon supplements: one study seems positive on them, the other seems less positive. But they never mention anything other than the positives. It's possible that the 2003 study: revealed that cinnamon may help improve blood sugar and cholesterol levels in people with Type 2 diabetes (but also causes people's hair to fall out).

Just because they don't talk about disadvantages, doesn't mean that there aren't any.

[thapliyalabhi]

Thanks Joe.

I thought since we can't go outside the scope of the argument, so there are no known disadvantages as per the argument.

"There are no known disadvantages to taking a cinnamon supplement.". Does this statement mean, there are no known disadvantages in real life or no known disadvantages in the argument.

[jlucero]

Just because WE can't go outside the scope of the argument in finding our conclusion doesn't mean there isn't more outside the argument. Otherwise, any negative statement would be correct on the GMAT. According to your logic, "there are no people on Earth" would be correct because they don't talk about people on Earth. Since they don't talk about disadvantages, we know nothing about whether there are disadvantages.