Q12 - Vitamin XYZ has long been

[jlz1202]

I chose C because there are more obvious flaws in the other 4 choices, but get confused after seeing the subtle "the next two years".
Since the stimulus only mentions "take vitamin...for two years..."(people did not take the vitamin before and then take the first two years, then have lower risk of heart disease), seems different from "the next two years" : by "next", people could have taken 2 years already, then take the vitamin for another 2 years which is not mentioned by the stimulus? How could we safely infer information that has not been mentioned in the stimulus in this case?
Thank you very much for help!

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a most supported question, so we need to go off of what is given to us.

We are told in the stimulus:

- Recent large study shows that those who took large amounts of this vitamin daily for 2 years showed on average 40% lower risk of heart disease than did the control group. Differences were corrected for health habits.

We have a correlation that those who took large amounts of this vitamin exhibited a less risk of heart disease than those that did not take it.

This is a fact across the board of this group.

Answer choices:

A) VitaminS? Eliminate. We are told only about 1 vitamin.

B) Looks good. It replicates what we have in the stimulus. Of course it does not factor things like diet and health issues, so it is not perfect. We will keep it though.

C) We cannot extrapolate something that is true of a group onto a single person. This also says 40% lower risk, we are told about an average of 40. Eliminate.

D) Over one's whole life? Not supported. We are told about something for 2 years. Eliminate.

E) Multiple vitamins? We are told only about one. Eliminate.

[bbirdwell]

by "next", people could have taken 2 years already, then take the vitamin for another 2 years which is not mentioned by the stimulus?

Note that this is NOT "not supported," nor is it supported. The stimulus itself does not specify whether or not the people in the study had already taken the vitamin for two years.

You're totally on point to notice that subtlety. The answer to your main question (when is it safe to infer) is simple: when it's reasonable, and the other choices are all clearly flawed.

Here, the evidence says "take two years, decrease risk." Choice (B) says this in more awkward language. And, as each of you pointed out, the other answers are clearly flawed. Therefore, this is a good answer and we should move on.

[jlz1202]

really clear up! thanks a lot!

[ericha3535]

I have no idea how B is right!
the argument talks about that taking pill could cause a person to have a healthy heart. The researchers "correct" this by saying that no, it's the healthy habits that are causes.

Ok, I sort of could see how B is right.
But, by last statement (about researchers refuting the result of study), B should have the word like "likely."

But B instead is strongly worded, that people who take pill WILL be healthier than before.

I was like whatttt? How is such strong language justified while the researcher just has refuted the study!

But I agree that B is the best answer choice out of 5. Is that good enough of a reason to move on?

Thanks!

[daniel]

I have no idea how B is right!
the argument talks about that taking pill could cause a person to have a healthy heart. The researchers "correct" this by saying that no, it's the healthy habits that are causes.

Ok, I sort of could see how B is right.
But, by last statement (about researchers refuting the result of study), B should have the word like "likely."

But B instead is strongly worded, that people who take pill WILL be healthier than before.

I was like whatttt? How is such strong language justified while the researcher just has refuted the study!

But I agree that B is the best answer choice out of 5. Is that good enough of a reason to move on?

Thanks!

I think you've misinterpreted the last sentence of the stimulus. It doesn't say that the researchers disputed the study. Rather, it says that the researchers adjusted the results to account for ("corrected for") differences in the health habits of the two groups. In other words, if they had found that some members in one of the groups differed significantly in the amount of exercise or "diet" (as mentioned) , then they made an effort to exclude the effects of that behavior from the results. So, this last sentence actually strengthens the implied causal relationship between Vitamin XYZ and the lower risk of heart disease.

[RusselC858]

by "next", people could have taken 2 years already, then take the vitamin for another 2 years which is not mentioned by the stimulus?

Note that this is NOT "not supported," nor is it supported. The stimulus itself does not specify whether or not the people in the study had already taken the vitamin for two years.

You're totally on point to notice that subtlety. The answer to your main question (when is it safe to infer) is simple: when it's reasonable, and the other choices are all clearly flawed.

Here, the evidence says "take two years, decrease risk." Choice (B) says this in more awkward language. And, as each of you pointed out, the other answers are clearly flawed. Therefore, this is a good answer and we should move on.

Thank you for your previous response! I appreciate your explanation. However, I still have some confusion regarding the reasoning behind selecting option B as the correct answer. I interpreted the statement 'a group taking vitamin is healthier than a group which did not take the vitamin' as implying two explanation: first, taking vitamin decrease risk of heart disease for individuals taking the vitamin. second, the vitamin only freezing the risk of heart disease without decreasing it, the risk increases as a person ages. Since this isn't explicitly stated in the stimulus, it led to my confusion. Could you please provide further clarification on this point? Thank you for your patience in addressing my questions.

ps: I choose D although I knew it's flawed, but my understanding was that 'Vitamin XYZ' meant a combination of Vitamin X, Vitamin Y, and Vitamin Z, and its preference for these vitamins implied a belief that taking vitamins promotes good health.....I just thought this flaw is not that obvious as B‘s .I'm so confused...