PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #8 Forum

[testmachine45]

Why is it B and not E?

I keep getting this simple answers wrong. Usually an answer like B is not right, ever.

[rso11]

His conclusion says MORE people are getting calcium from cheese than ice cream. He doesn't say that NO ONE eats both, a la E. This is an easy question if you answer it like you would to a friend - what if there's some other reason people are switching to cheddar? There's more to cheddar than just calcium, after all. For example, it has less sugar than ice cream. Maybe that's the reason. This overlooked possibility is B.

[testmachine45]

TY, what about #11?

I chose D, but the answer is B, which was my original choice...but I thought D better dealt with the fact that on average people were healthier with conventional diet. B just seemed weird.....how could the beta diet be defined as healthier if it hurts overall health?

[testmachine45]

I realize I read answer choice B incorrectly. However, it still doesn't make sense to me. The stimulus says beta diet is a healther diet.

[rso11]

I realize I read answer choice B incorrectly. However, it still doesn't make sense to me. The stimulus says beta diet is a healther diet.

B is right because it points out that while the Beta diet might be very healthy, if it's generally adopted by people who have some overarching health problem, their diet is only going to help so much. That problems means they're going to have shoddy health anyway, despite the healthy Beta diet. I often find it helpful to answer colloquially and make up examples to myself to test out answers. Like here, I might say (an exaggeration, but it does the job): if I have MS or something it doesn't matter how well I eat - I'm still unhealthy.

[testmachine45]

I mean, that seems like a stretch.

You're assuming the long term study only includes ppl with the major illness. Your are also assuming that the original medical researchers did not test the Beta Diet on these individuals with major illnesses, otherwise they could not claim that it is healthier than the conventional diet.

If it is in fact true that the Beta Diet is used primarily as a treatment for a condition that adversely affects overall health, then if the medical researchers tested these people, they could not claim it was in fact a healthier diet. If they did not test these people, then the Beta Diet is not used primarily as a treatment for a condition that adversely affects overall health, it is tested on normal people and it is ruled to actually be healthier.

And still, assuming even if the researchers tested non major illness people, and still people were likely to be in worse health than conventional diet in decades to follow, it is unlikely that the "Beta diet is used primarily as a treatment for a condition" since it is in fact healthier and thus would be used primarily for generating health among healthy people as well!

[testmachine45]

If the Beta Diet is healthier and its used as a treatment for people with AIDS. Why would the results be skewed? More healthy people would use the Beta Diet to be healthier[EDIT: than would use conventional], and all AIDS people would use the Beta Diet.

But if Conventional and Beta are the only kinds of diets, and there are more Beta Diets than Conventional diets,...there must be more absolute numbers of non sick people using Beta over Conventional. And as there is more non sick people total than there are AIDS people, the averages wouldn't be skewed. Thus it doesn't explain it.

[incompetentia]

If the Beta Diet is healthier and its used as a treatment for people with AIDS. Why would the results be skewed? More healthy people would use the Beta Diet to be healthier, and more AIDS people would use the Beta Diet. But if more non sick people use the Beta Diet and there are only so many AIDS people using it, would the number of AIDS people outdo the number of non sick people doing it? Probably never.

Used primarily is the key. With the word 'primarily' thrown in there, the bold part of your reasoning doesn't hold.

[testmachine45]

If the Beta Diet is healthier and its used as a treatment for people with AIDS. Why would the results be skewed? More healthy people would use the Beta Diet to be healthier, and more AIDS people would use the Beta Diet. But if more non sick people use the Beta Diet and there are only so many AIDS people using it, would the number of AIDS people outdo the number of non sick people doing it? Probably never.

Used primarily is the key. With the word 'primarily' thrown in there, the bold part of your reasoning doesn't hold.

Then how can it be healthier? It is a healthier diet not used by healthy people. Only by the sick?

[testmachine45]

If it is used only by the sick....then how can they determine it is healthier? They could do so only on non sick people. At least some non sick people must have undertook the Beta Diet in the medical researchers study.

[incompetentia]

Correct - like how the Atkins diet possibly was used primarily by diabetics before it became a gigantic sensation.

Diabetics are generally less healthy, but the Atkins diet when used properly is much more healthy than stuffing your face with carbs (sadly =( carbs noooo)


And they didn't say exclusively by the sick...they said primarily. Therefore, there -are- some nonsick people in the study.