Q9 - Manufacturers of coffee lighteners

[rwayersiii]

For some reason this question is a bit confusing for me. It seems to be a cause an effect argument; the use of one product leads to lower cholesterol than the use of another. We are asked to strengthen this, so I feel that I am looking for an answer choice which confirms the cause and effect relationship. (A) is wrong because it is saying that the product isn't the cause, but rather the lifestyle of the people who use the product. (B) is wrong because it is showing that it could be the case that neither product causes high cholesterol, but rather the pastries people eat with coffee. (C) doesn't seem to have an impact on the argument, it just says there is another product which has no cholesterol. (E) also doesn’t seem to have an impact on the argument. That leaves me with (D) which by process of elimination is the right answer, but I am not sure why it is right. To me it seems to suggest that it is not the product itself that results in lower cholesterol, but rather the amount of the product the people use.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, rwayersiii. Let's start with a summary of what we know about the two lighteners:

Whole milk: more cholesterol (2 milligrams); less saturated fat

Coconut oil: 7 times as much saturated fat (2 grams); no cholesterol BUT causes blood cholesterol levels to rise to a higher level than same amount of whole milk

So despite having no cholesterol in it, the coconut oil causes blood cholesterol levels to rise (as compared to the same amount of whole milk). So how on earth could it cause blood cholesterol levels to rise LESS than whole milk? Only if people use more of the whole milk. You get that in (D). Remember, that the comparison above was to the same amount of whole milk. The question stem tells us that the coconut oil doesn't "usually cause" the blood cholesterol level to rise (this allows them to consider the fact that people use more of one product than another).

Wrong answers:

(A) looks good at first. But it only describes a portion of the coconut oil drinkers. How many of them exercise a lot? Is it more than the number of whole milk users?

(B) is out of scope. Which lightener are they using?

(C) is also out of scope. We don't need a third lightener. The comparison is between coconut oil lightener and whole milk lightener.

(E) is again out of scope. We don't care what the consumers think, we care what their blood cholesterol levels are.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[WaltGrace1983]

I understand the answers now but I do have a question simply about the core. Is the conclusion what is written in the Q stem, "Their products usually cause the typically consumer's blood cholesterol to rise to a lower level than the use of whole milk?"

This question was so clunky and confusing because I thought the question was contradicting itself. However, I missed the part about using 1 tbsp does not constitute actual use. Maybe people use more than one tablespoon. I feel like I would have done a lot better if the stem wasn't so clunky and convoluted.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it's definitely an unusually dense question stem.

There isn't actually an argument core. Sometimes you're just asked to strengthen a claim.

A 'claim' doesn't have a core.
'Arguments/reasoning' have cores, because those nouns imply that a conclusion was reached on the basis of at least one supporting idea.

We know which 'claim' we're meant to support because the manufacturer only makes one claim, and it even says "manufacturers claim _____ ".

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the response! Upon revisiting this stimulus, I do have another question about it though.

(A) is wrong because we are concerned about comparing the relative impact of the coffee lighteners/milk on the consumer. It doesn't matter if their cholesterol is starting out low, high, medium, whatever. It is all about how the milk or lightener changes their blood cholesterol, the deviation I guess you could say.

(C) We don't care about another coffee lightener that isn't coconut-based or whole milk.

(D) This is right because, in the stimulus, we are comparing the impact of the lightener/milk per one tablespoon. One tablespoon of coconut lighteners causes its consumer's blood cholesterol to rise to a higher level than one tablespoon of whole milk. Yet the conclusion talks about use - who's to say that people only use one tablespoon of whole milk? Maybe they use much more. A strengthener, as this shows, would say that people add more whole milk than coconut-based lighteners.

(E) We don't care about what consumers are CONVINCED of, we want facts.

Yet as for (B), I am a little bit intrigued because I think with a slight change this could have been a correct answer and I want to hear what you think. If (B) would have said something like, "Using whole milk frequently leads consumers to eat pastries and other rich desserts resulting in high blood cholesterol levels when they would not have eaten them otherwise." This seems to show that the use of whole milk is probably more detrimental as it spawns another effect, eating a lot more cholesterol. What do you think?

[maryadkins]

Your rephrase makes (B) stronger but we still don't know how it would compare to coconut oil so I still wouldn't love it. Maybe coconut oil in coffee also leads people to consume pastries. (D) is still better.

[WaltGrace1983]

Your rephrase makes (B) stronger but we still don't know how it would compare to coconut oil so I still wouldn't love it. Maybe coconut oil in coffee also leads people to consume pastries. (D) is still better.

Ah, of course! The question is comparative in nature so the answer would have to be comparative in nature too! Thanks for the reply, Mary!