Dietitian: Eating fish can lower one’s cholesterol level. In a study of cholesterol levels and diet, two groups were studied. The first group ate a balanced diet including two servings of fish per week. The second group ate a very similar diet, but ate no fish. The first group showed lower cholesterol levels, on average, than the second group. The two groups had displayed similar average cholesterol levels prior to the study.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that eating fish can lower one’s cholesterol. This is based on a study comparing a group that ate fish and a group that didn’t eat fish. The fish-eating group ended up with lower cholesterol levels than the other group, even though the two groups started off with similar cholesterol levels.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is part of the support for the author’s conclusion. It helps to eliminate the possibility that the fish-group’s lower cholesterol is just a function of that group starting with lower cholesterol.

A
It is offered as an objection to the main conclusion of the argument.
The referenced text supports the conclusion.
B
It expresses the main conclusion of the argument.
The referenced text supports the conclusion, but it’s not the conclusion itself.
C
It rules out an alternative explanation of the data collected in the study.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. The fact the groups started with similar cholesterol levels eliminates the explanation that the fish-group just started out with lower cholesterol levels.
D
It provides background information on the purpose of the study.
The referenced text supports the conclusion. It’s not just background information.
E
It introduces an alternative explanation of the phenomenon described in the main conclusion.
The referenced text supports the author’s conclusion. It does not introduce an alternate explanation.

2 comments

Annette: To persuade the town council to adopt your development plan, you should take them on a trip to visit other towns that have successfully implemented plans like yours.

Sefu: But I have a vested interest in their votes. If council members were to accept a trip from me, it would give the appearance of undue influence.

Speaker 1 Summary

Annette recommends that Sefu take the town council on a trip to other towns that have successfully implemented a development plan similar to the one Sefu wants to implement

Speaker 2 Summary

Sefu points out that taking the town council on a trip in the manner Annette recommends would give the appearance of undue influence. Sefu’s implicit conclusion is that Annette’s recommendation is a bad idea.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether Sefu should take the town council on a trip to other towns.

A
the council should adopt Sefu’s development plan

Not a point of disagreement. Annette recommends that Sefu take the town council on a trip, which arguably suggests Annette agrees that the council should adopt Sefu’s plan. Even if we don’t know that Annette supports Sefu’s plan, we would not know Annette’s opinion.

B
Sefu should take the council on a trip to visit other towns

This is a point of disagreement. Annette recommends Sefu take the council on a trip to other towns. Sefu’s implicit conclusion is that this is not a good idea.

C
Sefu has a vested interest in the council’s votes

Annette doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t refer to any interest Sefu has in the council’s votes or say anything suggesting an opinion about that issue.

D
other towns have successfully implemented similar development plans

Not a point of disagreement. Sefu doesn’t say anything suggesting a belief about other towns’ development plans. Even if you think Sefu has an opinion, it would agree with Annette’s.

E
the appearance of undue influence should be avoided

Annette doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about undue influence and whether it should be avoided.


Comment on this