PT 60 Section 1 Q24 WTF?

LARamsNation

Frustrating question.. The first line states "Mammals cannot digest cellulose and therefore can't directely obtain glucose from wood.."

I chose answer A, which states that "mammals obtain no benificial health effects from eating cellulose."

I understand the explanation for the other correct answer choice, HOWEVER in explaining why "A" is wrong, Jon says that "it may be the case that it (cellulose) strengthens their (mammals) teeth." This could be a plausible explanation, if the answer choice didn't read that mammals obtain no benificial health effects from "EATING" cellulose. How can you attain health benefits from eating something, but not being able to digest it?

Maybe if it read that Mammals received no beneifical health benefits from "chewing" cellulose I'd understand the strengthening of the teeth example cited, but it explicitly states that the mammal would be "eating cellulose." So can someone please explain how you could possibly receive health benefits from something you eat but can't digest..? I doubt the LSAC counts illicit drugs like shrooms to be of a health benefit. Thanks

Hibiscus

The key is that in choosing A you assume that in order to obtain beneficial health effects you must be able to digest the cellulose to obtain glucose, and there is no beneficial health effects other than the glucose.

Mastication is part of "eating", so your mentioned example works because there is some way that it can provide a beneficial health effect. Also, even if you are unable to digest it, it could have the effect of destroying harmful bacteria in the body, which would be considered a beneficial health effect, or by being able to get constipated people to poop (dietary fiber).

A would only be true if the passage specifically stated that glucose is the only thing in cellulose that would offer mammals beneficial health effects.