Subscription pricing
Can someone please explain to me what answer D is trying to say? I think I kind of understand, but do not fully get how it resolves the paradox
0
Can someone please explain to me what answer D is trying to say? I think I kind of understand, but do not fully get how it resolves the paradox
4 comments
@dimakyure869 thank you! I understand now
@thetirogenes83
People with acute W have lower fat levels.
Doctors recommend lowering fat levels to prevent acute W.
The progression from latent to acute W can occur only when the agent that causes acute W absorbs large quantities of fat from the patients blood.
So, acute W requires absorption of large quantities of fat from the blood. (acute W → absorb large quantities of fat from blood)
So if you can't absorb large quantities of fat from blood (say because your blood fat levels have been lowered), you can't have acute W.
It might help to convert this to a weaken question:
People with acute W have lower fat levels.
Therefore you should keep your fat levels higher to avoid acute W.
Same AC to weaken:
The progression from latent to acute W can occur only when the agent that causes acute W absorbs large quantities of fat from the patients blood.
So high fat actually enables the development of W.
@dimakyure869 I wrote D instead of C. Can you please explain to me why C is right?
@thetirogenes83 said:
Can someone please explain to me what answer D is trying to say? I think I kind of understand, but do not fully get how it resolves the paradox
It doesn't.
People with acute W have lower fat levels.
Doctors recommend lowering fat levels to prevent acute W
D. Fat levels in people with W respond slower to changes in fat intake. So If you have W and you reduce your fat intake, your fat level may decrease but it would be slower than in someone without W.
That doesn't help us at all.
Ask yourself why the premises seem paradoxical. What assumption are they trying to get you to make?
Maybe simplify the premise further:Acute W correlates with low fat levels