ttunden Wrote:Yea I will agree with the other poster here
I got this wrong because I didn't classify walking as exercising. The older study just said that by walking you can achieve a lower chance of developing the cardio illness. I can see how it was E. During the test, I had down A and E as my two contenders.
So is there anything else wrong with A? because to me, during the test, I would not consider walking an exercise. I think a lot of other people would agree
exercise is defined as:
a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
b : bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness trying to get more exercise
But further, even if we did suppose that walking was not exercise, that wouldn't fully eliminate A.
(A) fails to consider the possibility that the risk of
developing certain cardio-respiratory illnesses
can be reduced by means other than exercise
If walking is not exercise, then this argument indeed does consider the possibility that risk is reduced by something other than exercise (walking), so it does not FAIL TO CONSIDER something else, as it mentions the study and specifically says that it should not be believed (but as I don't think that walking can be disputed as exercise, I think this is a digression from the real issues of the problem).
And that's how we get to the real flaw of the argument: it gives us no reason why we should believe the recent research cited in this argument, rather than "older studies" (plural, so that would seem more reason to question why we would throw out potentially numerous studies which show walking to reduce heart disease), and are expected to just throw these out because of vague explanations of new research proving otherwise. Okay, so we have two mutually exclusive claims: that vigorous exercise is the ONLY exercise that reduces risk, and older evidence which shows that walking ALSO reduces risk (and so would mean that vigorous exercise is NOT the ONLY exercise that reduces risk. In order to judge between these claims, we would need at least some type of explanation as to why the other studies were mistaken, or why the new research is more reliable, etc. -- but this arguments provides no such explanations or justifications. It just tells us "not heed older
studies purporting to show that nonstrenuous walking yields the same benefits."
Thus, the correct answer is
E) fails to show that a certain conclusion of the
recent report is better justified than an
opposing conclusion reached in older studies