Q20 - Magazine article: Sugar consumption

[nanagyanewa]

I found this question pretty tough. Could someone please explain to me why D is the right answer? I cannot understand how it is an assumption that is required for the argument. Thanks

[bbirdwell]

First make sure you identify the parts of the argument.

Conclusion:
Sugar consumption may exacerbate ADD.

Premises:
Study says kids produce adrenaline after consuming sugar, especially if that sugar comes from candy.

Well, ADD shows up in the conclusion and is found nowhere in the evidence. The author must be making some assumptions regarding the connection to ADD. Namely, that of adrenaline. You can think of it this way:

p: sugar --> adrenaline
c: (Maybe) sugar --> ADD

assumption?
adrenaline --> ADD

(A) irrelevant
(B) close! But it need not be OVERproduction, and it need not CAUSE the ADD. Look at the language -- "large amts of adrenaline"... "exacerbate ADD."
(C) not even close.
(D) yes! notice the difference in the language between B and D. This is a much better match to "large amts" and "exacerbate."
(E) doesn't matter.

[samuelfbaron]

Does the final sentence of the argument have any importance? "Sugar's effects aren't affected by eating other food" - that one?

It has no bearing on the argument, correct? While I got this answer correct, I was a bit confused on the last sentence and it's relationship with the gap in the argument.

[mitrakhanom1]

why is E wrong? I picked E because I felt that sugar consumption by itself and not within other foods would help justify why its the source of sugar from candy can exacerbate ADD.Meaning it would help justify that just sugar from candy worsens ADD. I didn't pick answer choice D because I felt the source is candy and not adrenaline and using the term severe was too strong for this argument. please help! thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

Good questions.

You said:
I picked E because I felt that sugar consumption by itself and not within other foods would help justify why its the source of sugar from candy can exacerbate ADD.Meaning it would help justify that just sugar from candy worsens ADD.

Remember, the conclusion is that "sugar consumption" exacerbates ADD, not "sugar from candy makes ADD worse".

The conclusion, and thus the argument, doesn't care where the sugar consumption comes from.

That last sentence was ultimately meaningless in terms of the argument core. If we negate (E), does it destroy the argument?

Negated (E):
Sugar from non-candy sources DOES substantially increase the level of adrenaline in the bloodstream.

This does not hurt the argument. The author's 2nd sentence is compatible with this. It says that "large amounts of adrenaline are produced after consuming large amounts of sugar".

The real confusion here is that the last sentence is merely saying that increase in adrenaline is "especially noticeable" when the sugar comes from candy. That doesn't mean that when the sugar comes from non-candy that the increase is NOT noticeable (which is essentially what (E) is saying). It would only mean that the increase is not ESPECIALLY noticeable.

You also said:
I didn't pick answer choice D because I felt the source is candy and not adrenaline and using the term severe was too strong for this argument.

I'm glad you're wary of extreme words such as "severe" when you're doing Necessary Assumption. However, when you speak in comparative terms, extreme words aren't really as extreme.

"more severe" just means "worse to some degree", which is synonymous with "exacerbating" a condition.

When we negate (D), we get "increased adrenaline CANNOT make ADD more severe in children."

Why did the author conclude that sugar consumption exacerbates ADD? Because sugar consumption leads to increased levels of adrenaline.

Negating (D) totally destroys that connection.

Hope this helps.

[ldfdsa]

This question almost killed me.

Could it be the case that Sugar --> worsening of ADD + increasing of adrenaline? I mean, the increase of adrenaline just indicate the worsening of ADD but not a cause of it/its worsening.

So, (D) is not needed. eliminate


But (E) is still not a good choice, because it does not deal directly with the main logic thread, even we know that if things other than candy do substantially increase adrenaline, its increase will not be "noticeable", kind of weakening the logic

Lot's of confusion.

Help needed.