Hi @Christine-Tara i know I'm not an instructor but the reason I picked (B) is because Myrna in her response brings up this idea that people also have serious chronic diseases that follow from eating this high fat diet. Therefore, she refutes Rolands position by pointing out that a "longer life" is not the only health benefit to consider when choosing to take on this lower fat diet. I was also able to eliminate some of the answer choices that helped lead to me picking (B) hope that helped a bit :)
IrinaJuly 23, 2019
@Christine-Tara,
Let's briefly summarize the argument.
M: People should follow a diet that involves less fat compared to the current average.
R: This recommendation would only benefit a tiny portion of the population and by prolonging their life by an insignificant amount. It is not worthwhile to make this sacrifice given these odds.
M: Currently prevalent diet is harmful not just because it results in a shorter lifespan, but serious chronic diseases for many people.
What role does M's response to R play here?
He clearly rejects her initial argument by saying that the benefits of switching diets in terms of extending one's lifespan are insignificant. She responds by saying that he fails to accurately account for other benefits, i.e. avoiding serious chronic illnesses. That is essentially what the correct answer choice (B) says - there are other factors to consider.
Let's look at the other answer choices:
(A) is wrong because she is not disputing his facts as incorrect. What she is saying even if your facts are true and it is only 0.2% of the population that extend their lifespan by 3 months, there are other facts to consider;
(C) is wrong, and it is identical to (A). She is not disputing any facts or statistics that R uses;
(D) is wrong because again she never disputes his facts, statistics, or evidence;
(E) is wrong because she offers additional facts for R to consider rather than pointing out that his argument is circular.
Let me know if this is helpful and if you have any other questions.
