Medical research has established that the Beta Diet is healthier than a more conventional diet. But on average, peopl...

Kim on November 17, 2014

Pleease Help

I do not understand the question

3 Replies

Melody on December 8, 2014

The question stem asks us to resolve the discrepancy in the argument. So, our first task is to identify the discrepancy.

We are told that medical research has established that the Beta Diet is healthier than a more conventional diet. However, on average, those who have followed the Beta Diet for several decades are much more likely to be in poor health than are people whose diet is more conventional.

How can we explain this discrepancy that though the Beta Diet has been medically proven to be healthier than a conventional diet, that those who have followed the Beta Diet for several years are--on average--in poorer health than those who follow a more conventional diet?

Well, if the Beta Diet was intended for people who have a condition that worsens their overall health, then it makes sense that despite the fact that the Beta Diet has been proven to be a healthier choice than conventional diets, that those who follow the Beta Diet for several years--on average--are more likely to be in poor health than those whose diet is more conventional, since those who follow the Beta Diet have a condition that adversely affects their health.

This is why answer choice (B) is correct: "The Beta Diet is used primarily as a treatment for a condition that adversely affects overall health."

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

on July 13 at 05:42AM

what is C incorrect?

Victoria on July 14 at 02:17PM

Hi @hfatima1,

Happy to help!

As Naz identified above, the discrepancy that we are trying to resolve is that research has established that the Beta Diet is healthier than a conventional diet but people who have followed the Beta Diet for several decades are likely to be less healthy than people who follow a conventional diet.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect because it doesn't help us to resolve the paradox. If people who switch to the Beta Diet find that their health substantially improves, then why do those who have followed the Beta Diet for decades have lower levels of health than those on a conventional diet?

Even if we assume that these substantial improvements are short-lived, this still doesn't explain why research says that the diet is healthy but people who follow it have worse health than those who follow a conventional diet. If anything, their health should be similar.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.