A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer. Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.

In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
B. The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.
C. The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
D. The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
E. The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.

Why is the first Boldface against the argument being presented ?

Let me ask you this--what is the argument's overall claim or conclusion? That will help us analyze the roles of the boldface sentences.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

Conclusion: "the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids."
From the sentence, I infer that previous studies were inconclusive. However, this study by swedish scientists produced some results. Is this a wrong inference ?

my understanding is that if we take a step back, the argument's overall claim is that there is a link between eating fish and cancer (i.e. they are negatively correlated). the first boldface statement is saying that based on results of other studies, there is no such link.

in other words, the argument that is presented claims that A and B are connected, while the boldface statement claims that there is no connection between A and B. thus, it goes against the argument.


i also tried to eluminate answer choices here just by looking at the first portion of every answer choice. my logic was:
a) The first is an opinion = no its a fact = wrong
c) The first presents the quandary = not a quandary. its a statement/fact. the quandary that the scientists are attempting to solve is presented earlier in the statement
d) goes against the argument/weakens the argument = no support = no
e) advocated by argument implies that argument agrees with this claim => not true so wrong

Great work George, and you are exactly right.

I often think of the conclusion as the "headline" of the argument. In other words, if a journalist had to capture the main point of the argument, what would he/she write?

"Eating fish helps prevent kidney cancer"
OR
"lower rate of kidney cancer attributed to omega 3 acids"

The second one is explaining why eating fish prevents kidney cancer.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor