Question stem: “which…if true…most helps to resolve…apparent discrepancy…?” Another RRE question.

In trying to reduce the amount of fat in their diet, on average people have decreased their consumption of red meat by one-half in the last two decades.

This is on average. This doesn’t mean that every single person cut their red meat intake in half in the last twenty years; that could be the case, but it could also be the case that half the population didn’t change their red meat intake at all while the other half went cold turkey (no pun intended) on red meat, i.e. they stopped eating it altogether; that would also produce a reduction by half of the average red meat intake across the population. This average could have been reached by any number of varying diets across the population, as long as they average out to a decrease of 50% (i.e. a halving).

However, on average those who have reduced their consumption of red meat actually consume substantially more fat than those who have not.

“However” signals the bit we’re supposed to be surprised by: It says that, again on average, the people who have reduced their red meat intake actually now consume more fat than those who haven't reduced their red meat consumption. Epic fail! These people tried to reduce fat by cutting out red meat, but ended up with a higher-fat diet anyway.

Register how you're reacting to this. Where on the psychological continuum are you? Are you completely confused, or do you have some idea of what the explanation might be?

Before we take a look at the answers, just a quick point about the use of “average” twice in quick succession. The first instance of “average” accounts for the change in red meat consumption across everybody over 20 years (it was cut in half). The second instance of “average” only applies to the subset who ended up reducing their consumption of red meat - they actually ended up consuming more fat on average.

Answer Choice (A) Many more people have reduced their consumption of red meat over the last two decades than have not.

(A) compares the number of people who have reduced their red meat consumption over the last two decades with the number of people who have not. More people reduced steak consumption than those who didn’t. Okay. But how many people reduced red meat intake doesn't matter. We don’t care about the size of the groups. However many people reduced steak consumption, whether more or less than the ones who didn’t, what we still need to know is why they didn’t correspondingly reduce their fat intake.

Answer Choice (B) Higher prices over the last two decades have done as much to decrease the consumption of red meat as health concerns have.

(B) provides another reason for why people have reduced their consumption of red meat. The stimulus tells us one reason, health concerns. (B) tells us another: economics. Steak just costs more, and this factor is as causally impactful on the reduction of steak consumption as dietary concerns. I’m glad I know this… wait, no I’m not! (B) is trying to distract us. We still can’t explain the puzzling consequences of the reduction. Why did people who reduced (for whatever reason) end up consuming more fat than the people who did not? Keep your eye on the prize.

How many people (A) doesn’t matter. Why they did it (B) doesn’t matter.

Answer Choice (C) People who reduce their consumption of red meat tend to consume as much of other foods that are high in fat as do those who have not reduced their consumption of red meat.

(C) blocks a potential explanation. The stimulus did not reveal much about the two groups' diets except that one group reduced red meat consumption. What about the rest of their diet? If the rest of their diet was wildly more fatty, that could have explained the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus. But (C) tells that as far as the rest of their diet is concerned, the two groups' fat consumption is comparable. Thanks but no thanks. Had (C) told us that the less-red-meat group consumed more fat from another source, then we’d have a resolution. This is just what we find in…

Correct Answer Choice (D) People who reduce their consumption of red meat tend to replace it with cheese and baked goods, which are richer in fat than red meat.

The stimulus did not reveal much about the two groups' diets except that one group reduced red meat consumption. (D) asks what did the reduction group replace red meat with? Could it be with nothing, as in they are just consuming less now? Or maybe they replace it with lettuce? Or did they replace it with butter? (D) says it's butter. The less-red-meat group is now eating a stick of butter a day. (Okay, actually baked goods and cheese, but you understand what I’m saying.) Well, no wonder they are actually consuming more fat than the non-reduction group.

(D) is right but not perfect. (D) is silent on whether the non-reduction group changed its diet. Did the non-redunction group also add cheese and baked goods to its diet? (D) doesn't tell us. Yet we need to assume that the non-reduction group didn’t also start to eat butter. That’s a fair assumption because we have no reason to believe that they would. I point this out because (D) is a bit different from the previous correct answers in this regard. It requires a reasonable assumption. As RRE questions get more difficult, their answer choices will become even more subtle. That’s why it’s important even now to remind ourselves not to get lulled into the habit of looking for answers that overshoot the requirements laid out in the question stem.

Answer Choice (E) Studies have shown that red meat contains slightly less fat than previously thought.

(E) Okay, so we used to think that red meat contains 30% fat, but now we believe it contains 28% fat. This is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that red meat still contains fat, just less than what people used to think. With (E), we're still left searching for an explanation for why fat intake actually increased despite cutting out a still-fatty food: red meat. Again, why did the reduction group end up consuming more fat than the non-reduction group?

LET'S REVIEW

The stimulus tells us that some people cut down on red meat (which is fatty) consumption. It also tells us that the reduction group ended up consuming more fat than the non-reduction group. Why? Because the reduction group replaced their red meat consumption with even fattier foods.

(A), (B), and (E) address issues that do not provide an explanation. (C) blocks a potential explanation.

The harder the RRE question, the more it exploits the relative standard of “most” specified in the question stem. The consequence is that their correct answers tend to be more subtle, requiring reasonable assumptions. That stands in contrast to the correct answers in easier RRE questions which are more explicit, complete, and exhaustive explanations. Don’t be lulled into thinking that all correct answers on RRE must be like that.

Lessons to review