Medical researcher: Studies in North America have shown that the incidence of heart disease in a population is closely related to the average fat consumption for individuals in that population. However, although residents of France consume, on average, as much fat as residents of North America, heart disease presently occurs half as frequently among the French as among North Americans.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why do residents of France have a rate of heart disease half that of North Americans, even though they eat as much fat as North Americans, and studies in North America show that the rate of heart disease in a population is closely related to the average fat consumption of individuals in that population?

Objective

The correct answer should tell us something special about the French compared to North Americans that would lead to a lower rate of heart disease.

A
The average level of fat consumption by the French has been falling for several decades.

This doesn’t differentiate the French from North Americans. In addiiton, we already know the French eat just as much fat as North Americans. We have no reason to think that higher rates of fat consumption in the past have any impact.

B
Other factors of diet besides high consumption of fat have not been similarly linked with incidence of heart disease.

If this has any impact, it deepens our confusion. If other diet factors haven’t been linked to heart disease, then it’s harder to explain the discrepancy by pointing to a difference in other foods eaten by the French and North Americans.

C
Heart disease takes years to develop and the average level of fat consumption in France increased to North American levels only a few years ago.

This points out a difference between French and North Americans that could explain the French people’s lower heart rate. They only recently reached the same level of fat consumption as North Americans, so the French’s heart disease rate may not have had enough time to rise.

D
Certain diseases other than heart disease have also been linked to average fat consumption, and the French have a higher incidence of these than do North Americans.

We’re trying to explain the discrepancy in heart disease rate. Lack of difference in rates of other disease doesn’t help explain why the French have a different rate of heart disease from North Americans.

E
Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of heart disease and France has a higher percentage of cigarette smokers in its population than does North America.

This deepens our confusion, because it would lead us to expect the French to have a higher rate of heart disease than North Americans. But they actually have a lower rate.


1 comment

While the population of city X is approximately one-half that of city Y, the number of city X residents who are patients in hospitals is only one-fourth that of the number of city Y residents who are patients in hospitals.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is the ratio of X residents who are patients in hospitals to Y residents who are patients in hospitals lower than the ratio of X’s population to Y’s population?

Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. The four wrong answers should suggest a potential difference between X’s residents and Y’s residents that could lead to X’s residents being less likely to go to the hospital. For example, maybe X’s residents are healthier than Y’s residents, or maybe X’s residents have worse access to hospitals than Y’s residents.

A
Preventive health programs are more prevalent in city X than in city Y.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. Maybe they have fewer illnesses that require going to the hospital because of their more prevalent preventive health programs.
B
The hospitals in city X are noted as leaders in employing outpatient treatment wherever possible.
Outpatient treatment is treatment outside a hospital. This suggests X residents get more outside-the-hospital treatment than Y residents. That could be why comparatively fewer X residents are patients “in” hospitals.
C
The drinking water of city Y has dangerously high levels of pollutants, whereas this is not the case for city X.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. More dangerous water in Y could lead to more illness among Y residents, which might lead to more need for treatment in a hospital.
D
The hospitals in city Y are of very high quality, and residents of city X are often sent there for treatment.
We’re not trying to explain why X’s hospitals have fewer patients. We’re trying to explain why fewer X residents are patients in a hospital (regardless of location). X residents who go to hospitals in Y are still counted as “X residents who are patients in hospitals.”
E
The lifestyle in city X is significantly less stressful than the lifestyle in city Y.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. Less stressful lifestyles could lead to better health and less need to go to the hospital. A potential connection between stress and health is reasonable.

12 comments

A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious injuries to workers is higher in industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors than in industries that are not so monitored.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Industries monitored by government safety inspectors are more dangerous to workers than industries that aren’t monitored by government safety inspectors.

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between government-monitored industries and non-government-monitored industries. That difference must result in the latter being safer for workers, likely because of the work involved or because of some other monitoring system in place.

A
Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices.
This suggests that the government-inspected industries would be rather safe. We need to know why they’re less safe than non-government-monitored industries.
B
Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations.
It doesn’t matter if the regulations are enforced. We need to know why government monitoring is correlated with lower workplace safety.
C
Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors.
Government-monitored industries are less safe because the industries are inherently dangerous. Other industries, even though they’re not monitored, pose less risks to workers. This explains the surprising finding in the study.
D
Workers behave especially cautiously when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors.
If workers are more cautious than usual in government-monitored industries, wouldn’t injuries be less common than usual? We need something to explain why they’re more common.
E
Some of the industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored.
We’re not interested in outliers. Our stimulus tells us that government-monitored industries are generally less safe than other industries, and we need to know why that is.

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

2 comments