Top Law Schools

High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart. Like meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish contains cholesterol. But shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart; it is very low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol much more than dietary cholesterol does.

Strengthen question

The correct answer is "foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol"

My problem is that the question says nothing about low blood cholesterol, only high levels of cholesterol being bad for the heart. It's possible that low blood cholesterol is equally bad for the heart, you do not know this.

Can someone explain this?

dba415 wrote:High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart. Like meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish contains cholesterol. But shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart; it is very low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol much more than dietary cholesterol does.

Strengthen question

The correct answer is "foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol"

My problem is that the question says nothing about low blood cholesterol, only high levels of cholesterol being bad for the heart. It's possible that low blood cholesterol is equally bad for the heart, you do not know this.

Can someone explain this?

Guess you shoulda drawn that inference.

Hmm still not positive. Could you explain more?

I think I know what question you're talking about, but it would be much easier to explain if I had the text in front of me. Could you give us PT/section/question number?

You're right. The fact that it promotes "low" blood cholesterol could very well weaken the argument since low blood cholesterol may not necessarily be a good thing. But yeah, it would be beneficial if we knew what PT/Section/Question this is from so that we could read the entire stimulus and/or all the answer choices that would perhaps validate this answer.

the question is PT 32(oct 2000) Section 4 #9

I have an issue with LR questions in general. On another PT - pt 60 - a correct answer choice required the student to assume that for someone to have a bad reputation it was required that people could say bad things about that person. In hindsight, that seems kind of obvious. However, it is still an assumption required for the correct answer choice to strengthen or justify the critics argument. Are we expected to make assumptions about the implications of answer choices when none of them seem good enough outright?

I think this was pt 60 - LR1 - #23

.

.

.

Thanks max324, that explanation makes sense.

I feel this is one time where if you don't really get the question, you'll get it right, if you get it a bit more but not fully, you'll get it wrong, and if you understand it fully, you will also get it right.

Bildungsroman wrote:Guess you shoulda drawn that inference.

lol this

Don't overthink stuff like this. You shoot yourself in the foot when you go full retard trying to pick apart answer choices like that. If high is bad, low is at least better (knowing nothing else) and therefore strengthens.

tfleming09 wrote: If high is bad, low is at least better (knowing nothing else) and therefore strengthens.

Nope. I didn't read the question, but if the stimulus says that high blood cholesterol is bad for the heart, you can't assume that low cholesterol is better.

Now, if it said that higher levels of blood cholesterol equate to a higher risk for heart conditions, you can infer that lower is better. But you can't if it doesn't make that comparative statement.

bp shinners wrote:Nope. I didn't read the question, but if the stimulus says that high blood cholesterol is bad for the heart, you can't assume that low cholesterol is better.

Now, if it said that higher levels of blood cholesterol equate to a higher risk for heart conditions, you can infer that lower is better. But you can't if it doesn't make that comparative statement.

OK, fair, but reading this question (PT 32, section 4, question 9) answer choice D) clearly closes that hole in the argument. It seems really obvious that's the correct answer - if for nothing else, the other 4 answers clearly are not.