Q19 - People should avoid taking

[lovelessim]

I am having an issue with the correct answer (D) on this one because it says secretion AND neutralization. The secretion is clearly stated in the text, but it seems like you aren't sure if neutralization begins with such a small dosage (.5 grams). Seems like a stretch. It would be nice to hear thoughts on how this is justified.

I selected "B"...which I now see is far too strong of statement, because there may be many causes of impaired kidney function.

Thanks!

[noah]

Yeah, there are some tricky wrong answers on this one. I'll run through my thinking:

In a slightly different order than the stimulus: We learn that calcium carbonate can neutralize stomach acids, and later we learn that just half a gram can also stimulate the production of stomach acid. We also learn that calcium carbonate can increase calcium in the blood, which can impair kidney function. So, for those reasons, it makes sense that the first sentence suggests people take not take more than 1/2 a gram of calcium carbonate.

We need to draw an inference from all that information.

(A) is incorrect because of degree and scope. We don't learn about stopping gastrin production, and we can't compare its efficacy to some other method.

(B) is subtly unsupported. We don't learn what happens to folks who don't take calcium carbonate--it might be good or bad for you. Perhaps small doses of it help you avoid the common illness of kidney-impairmentitis, or perhaps small doses are the worst! Or, maybe if you avoid taking calcium carbonate you get some other form of kidney-impairing illness.

(C) is another tempting answer. Doesn't the stimulus say that if you take a lot of this stuff you'll stimulate stomach production? However, perhaps taking large doses has an overall effect of neutralizing stomach acid regardless of the fact that there's some stomach acid production. Or, more likely, perhaps the acidity level stays constant past a certain dosage level, with the calcium carbonate neutralizing the newly secreted stomach acid.

(D) is strongly supported, because we learn that calcium carbonate can lead to increasing and neutralizing stomach acids. And while we don't know the effect of such a small dose, we know the substance has a "capacity to neutralize stomach acids", which is good enough for "contributing" to the neutralization.

(E) is reversing some information. Calcium in the blood can impair kidney function. We don't know about the other way around.

Does that nail the coffin on this one?

[lovelessim]

Yeah I think it was a case of over-thinking. Thanks for the help.

[lhermary]

I have an issue with this one. In the stimulus is says doses larger then half a gram while question D says just half a gram. Because of this I took way longer then I should have to answer this question. Where did I go wrong? Should I just have used POE to get to D.

Thanks

[evelina.chang]

I have an issue with this one. In the stimulus is says doses larger then half a gram while question D says just half a gram. Because of this I took way longer then I should have to answer this question. Where did I go wrong? Should I just have used POE to get to D.

Thanks

The stimulus actually says, "just half a gram of it can stimulate the production..." (in the last sentence)

The larger than half a gram in the stimulus is merely referring to a suggestion that people should avoid taking such doses.

[noah]

I have an issue with this one. In the stimulus is says doses larger then half a gram while question D says just half a gram. Because of this I took way longer then I should have to answer this question. Where did I go wrong? Should I just have used POE to get to D.

Thanks

The answer above is correct. You seem to have overlooked the last sentence of the stimulus.

The more than half a gram part is referring to the danger of impairing kidney function because of calcium.

Regarding POE, yes, particularly with inference questions.

Thanks for the question.

[shirando21]

Yeah, there are some tricky wrong answers on this one. I'll run through my thinking:

In a slightly different order than the stimulus: We learn that calcium carbonate can neutralize stomach acids, and later we learn that just half a gram can also stimulate the production of stomach acid. We also learn that calcium carbonate can increase calcium in the blood, which can impair kidney function. So, for those reasons, it makes sense that the first sentence suggests people take not take more than 1/2 a gram of calcium carbonate.

(A) is incorrect because of degree and scope. We don't learn about stopping gastrin production, and we can't compare its efficacy to some other method.

(B) is subtly unsupported. We don't learn what happens to folks who don't take calcium carbonate. Perhaps small doses of it help you avoid the common illness of kidney-impairmentitis.

(C) is another tempting answer. Doesn't the stimulus say that if you take a lot of this stuff you'll stimulate stomach production? However, perhaps taking large doses has an overall effect of neutralizing stomach acid regardless of the fact that there's some stomach acid production. Or, more likely, perhaps the acidity level stays constant past a certain dosage level, with the calcium carbonate neutralizing the newly secreted stomach acid.

(D) is strongly supported, because we learn that calcium carbonate can lead to increasing and neutralizing stomach acids. And while we don't know the effect of such a small dose, we know the substance has a "capacity to neutralize stomach acids", which is good enough for "contributing" to the neutralization.

(E) is reversing some information. Calcium in the blood can impair kidney function. We don't know about the other way around.

Does that nail the coffin on this one?

Hi, Noah, is B the kind of flaw of: A-->B-->C, -A--->-C?

taking ACC > 1/2 g---->C in blood increase-->impair kidney function.

Answer B: - taking ACC>1/2g---> - impaired kidney function (less likely)

[noah]

Hi, Noah, is B the kind of flaw of: A-->B-->C, -A--->-C?

taking ACC > 1/2 g---->C in blood increase-->impair kidney function.

Answer B: - taking ACC>1/2g---> - impaired kidney function (less likely)

Yeah, we only know what happens if you do take it, we don't know what happens if you DON'T take it.

[jeff.wongkachi]

noah might have already said this in different terms, but with regards to A, it's pretty much wrong because it is too strong. Specifically, "...direct neutralization of stomach acid"? That's not supported at all. What if you could neutralize stomach acid directly via a method other than antacid calcium carbonate? We only know that the antacid invokes gastrin production.

If it said "... of stomach acid via the carbonate" then it would be a stronger answer choice (I think). Still, it would fall short b/c there's no comparison of methodologies for stomach acid reduction, just a discussion about what the carbonate does and what its effects are. In this case,

D works better since it is technically supported by both the first sentence and the last sentence.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

This question took forever but in the end I got it right. Here was my thought process whilst answering it.

A) This may be true, but isn't supported by the text. While we're told that gastrin contributes to acid secretion, we can't infer from the information that we're given that the cessation gastrin is more effective in combating stomach acids in comparison outright neutralizing them. Furthermore, the efficacy of controlling excess stomach acids is not mentioned in the text.


B) This is not supported in the stimulus. Perhaps people who take a 0.5 g or less of ACC also happen to engage in activities that may make their kidneys worse off. Further, we're given no information as to the average rate of those suffering from impaired kidney function, consequently, we cannot not reasonably infer that those who take 0.5 g or less are less likely to suffer from the latter.

C) This is a tempting answer choice, but it's not supported by the text. Since the author claims that one should not consume more than 0.5g of ACC and that 0.5 g is can but does not necessarily indirectly stimulate stomach acid, it is very easy to erroneously infer that there exists a causal link between dosage and potency. However, we're given no information as to how much stomach acid could be produced by 0.5g of ACC. Even if 0.5 g of ACC could indirectly produce X amount of stomach acids, perhaps 0.4 of ACC could indirectly produce, even more, let's say X + 1. Perhaps after a certain dosage that is 0.5g >, potency stays stable or declines. Better yet, perhaps a 0.5g > dosage of ACC would be completely ineffective in neutralizing stomach acids. If either of the aforementioned facts were true, this answer choice would be wrong. But it simply, this answer choices requires you to make inferences using information not provided in the stimulus.

D) Bingo, this is adequately supported in the stimulus. We're told half a gram of ACC can stimulate acid growth in the stomach and also that ACC irrelevant of dosage can neutralize stomach acids.

E) This may be true but this isn't supported by the text, in fact, this is the reverse of one of the statements in the stimulus, eliminate.

[mattFbuelow]

I just want to add here that for me, I realized afterward my confusion was a grammatical one regarding usage of "its" in the stimulus that led me to choose B.

The stimulus specifically says "its capacity to neutralize stomach acids". When I first read it, I assumed "its" referred to "calcium carbonate in doses larger than half a gram" when "its" apparently is only referring to "calcium carbonate" alone. Once I understood this, answer D made a lot more sense.
I think another good reason for D is that in the first sentence the stimulus uses the term "antacid" for calcium carbonate which you might infer automatically means it can neutralize stomach acids, as stated in D.

Hope that helps others who had the same thought process as me.