The public is well aware that high blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of stroke caused by blood clots. But a rec...

Rameshwar-Patel October 11, 2018

Why B?

OwenC February 21, 2019

Whats wrong with answer choice E?

Katherine February 22, 2019

Hello @Thomas-Siwula, @Rameshwar-Patel, and @OwenC,

I’m happy to help with this question.

The passage tells us that high blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of stroke caused by blood clots. (This first sentence will be irrelevant to the argument that follows). It goes on to say that a recent report shows that low blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of stroke by cerebral hemorrhage. The passage ends by saying that this report supports the contention by Japanese researchers that Western diets better protect against cerebral hemorrhage than do non-Western diets.

The question asks you to identify the assumption on which the argument is based. The study discussed in the passage found that low levels of blood cholesterol can lead to cerebral hemorrhage. Then the passage says that this study supports the theory that Western diets protect against cerebral hemorrhage better than non-Western diets. What is the key assumption that logically leads to this conclusion? The answer is that Western diets result in higher blood cholesterols levels (thus avoiding the risk of cerebral hemorrhage caused by low blood cholesterol levels) than non-Western diets. This assumption is expressed in Answer B, which is the correct answer.

Now let’s take a look at the other answers and identify why they are incorrect. Answer A says that Western diets are healthier than non-Western diets. The passage is not interested in overall health of one diet over another. Instead, it is interested in how high or low cholesterol levels effect risk to different kind of strokes. The assumption must address cholesterol levels specifically, and not overall health.

Answer C says high blood cholesterol levels preclude the weakening of artery walls. While this may or may not be true, this is not the assumption the argument is based on. In order to logically made the conclusion about whether or not Western diets better protect against cerebral hemorrhage than non-Western diets, we must know how these different diets compare in terms of cholesterol levels. Without that important information, there is no way to logically connect the findings of the study to the contention made by the Japanese researchers. Answer C does not provide information about the relative cholesterol levels, so it is the incorrect answer.

Answer D says cerebral hemorrhages are more dangerous than strokes caused by blood clots. The contention by Japanese researchers is about the effect of diet on cerebral hemorrhages. The argument is not about the relative dangerousness of the two types of strokes.

Answer E says people with low blood pressure are at increased risk of cerebral hemorrhage. The recent study already showed that people with low blood cholesterol levels are at increased risk of cerebral hemorrhage. The question asks you to identify the assumption on which the argument is based — an assumption outside of the facts explicitly mentioned in the argument. In order to make the conclusion that this study supports the Japanese theory we must know something about the cholesterol levels in Western and non-Western diets. That is assumption on which the argument is based.

I hope this is helpful. Please reach out with other questions!

parikhnj November 3, 2020

is this common a wrong answer where a fact is restated?