We're looking for an answer choice that has an argument structure that's parallel to the argument structure in the stimulus.
In reading the stimulus, we're told that it's inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes because a diet high in refined sugar can make a person overweight, and being overweight can predispose someone to adult-onset diabetes.
The structure of this argument is
A - -B - -C
Conclusion: not A - -can't cause - -C
They're basically saying that we can't conclude that A doesn't cause C because A can cause B, and B can predispose someone to C
Let's look for an answer choice that matches this structure.
(A) is incorrect because it doesn't match the structure. (A) has a structure of
D - -B - -C
not A - -can cause - -C
This is out.
(B) is incorrect because it doesn't match the structure of the stimulus.
(B)'s structure is
H - -B - -W
Therefore, not H - -W
(C) is incorrect because it doesn't match. (C)'s structure is
F - -GR - - LRD
Therefore, OF - -LD
(D) is correct, as its structure matches the structure we identified in the stimulus. (D) says it's incorrect to say that inferior motor oil cannot cause a car to get poorer gasoline mileage, since inferior motor oil can cause engine value deterioration, and engine valve deterioration can lead to poorer gasoline mileage.
This maps to
A - -B - -C
Conclusion: not A - -can't cause - -C
(E) is incorrect because it doesn't match the structure. The key distinction between (D) and (E) is that the conclusions are different. (D) is saying you CAN'T SAY that something CAN'T CAUSE something, whereas (E) is saying that you CAN'T SAY that something WAS something. The second half of (D)'s conclusion is a negative, whereas the second half of (E)'s conclusion is a positive.
(E) maps to
A taught B, B taught C
Therefore, A didn't teach C
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
