Let's analyze the argument in the passage. The argument concludes that people who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat. Why? Studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reach age 50 without developing serious heart disease, so avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease.
What's the flaw? We only know the percentage of those who are strict vegetarians reach age 50 without developing serious heart disease. We do not have a comparison percentage for those who are not strictly vegetarian. So, we cannot then conclude that avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease because we have no information about people who eat meat. For example, what if 80% of people who eat meat reach age 50 without developing serious heart disease?
Answer choice (E) presents us with a similar pattern of flawed reasoning. It tells us that most people who exercise regularly are able to handle stress. Then, without making a comparison to those who do not exercise regularly, it concludes from this that exercising regularly decreases one's chances of being overwhelmed by stress. However, without knowing how those who do not exercise regularly react to stress, we cannot make such a conclusion. And so it is not necessarily correct to conclude that those who want to be able to handle stress should regularly engage in exercise.
Answer choice (B), however, does not carry this same pattern of flawed reasoning. The first statement tells us: "Studies have shown that cigarette smokers have a greater chance of incurring heart disease than people who do not smoke." Right off the bat, unlike the passage, we are given a comparison.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
