Medical columnist: Some doctors recommend taking vitamin C to help maintain overall health because vitamin C is an antioxidant, a substance that protects the body from certain types of oxygen particles that can trigger disease. People suffering from various ailments are encouraged to take vitamin C to guard against developing other health problems. However, doctors are now discouraging some cancer patients from taking vitamin C, even when they are undergoing therapies with side effects that are detrimental to their overall health.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why do doctors discourage some cancer patients from taking vitamin C, even though some doctors encourage people suffering from other illnesses to take vitamin C to guard against developing other health problems?

Objective

The correct answer should help suggest how taking vitamin C might be negative for cancer patients, even if it’s helpful for patients with other illnesses.

A
Some kinds of cancer cells absorb large amounts of vitamin C, which interferes with the oxidation mechanism by which many cancer therapies kill cancer cells.

This helps show that vitamin C could be negative for cancer patients. If some cancer cells interfere with cancer therapies by absorbing lots of vitamin C, taking vitamin C might undermine the effectiveness of cancer therapies.

B
Vitamin C has not been shown to reduce people’s risk of developing cancer, even at the very high dosage levels recommended by some doctors.

Vitamin C is recommended because it helps guard against developing “other health problems.” So, even if it doesn’t help with cancer, it can still guard against other illnesses in a cancer patient. We’d still expect doctors to recommend vitamin C to cancer patients.

C
Cancer cells that are susceptible to certain types of cancer therapies are not likely to be affected by the presence of vitamin C.

Vitamin C is recommended because it helps guard against developing “other health problems.” Even if it doesn’t help with killing cancer cells, it can still guard against other illnesses in a cancer patient. We’d still expect doctors to recommend vitamin C to cancer patients.

D
The better the overall health of cancer patients while undergoing therapy, the more likely they are to experience a full recovery.

This doesn’t tell us anything about vitamin C or how it might affect cancer patients.

E
Certain side effects of cancer therapies that are detrimental to patients’ overall health are not affected by vitamin C.

Vitamin C is recommended because it guards against developing “other health problems.” Even if it doesn’t help with side effects of therapies, it can still guard against other illnesses in a cancer patient. We’d still expect doctors to recommend vitamin C to cancer patients.


2 comments

A film makes a profit if the number of people who see it is sufficient to generate revenues from ticket sales greater than the amount spent to make it. Hence, the primary goal of movie executives is to maximize the number of people who see a film. However, it is not the primary goal of television executives to maximize the number of viewers for their shows.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is maximizing the number of viewers for a TV show not the primary goal for TV executives, even though maximizing viewers is the primary goal for movie executives? Films make a profit if the number of viewers is enough to generate ticket sales greater than the amount spent to make the film. So, we might expect the same to be true for TV shows.

Objective
The correct answer should help differentiate TV shows from films in a way that would suggest maximizing viewers isn’t as important for a TV shows as it is for a film.

A
More people are willing to see a film more than once than are willing to watch a television show more than once.
The willingness of a viewer to watch the same film or the same TV show doesn’t relate to the motivation of TV executives or the connection between viewership and profits for TV shows.
B
There is no analog in television to the large profits that owners of movie theaters make by selling refreshments to their customers.
This answer concerns profits of movie theater owners. But that doesn’t explain why TV show executives don’t have maximizing viewership as the primary goal. Wouldn’t we still expect higher viewership to lead to more profits?
C
The average cost of producing an hour of film is much greater than the average cost of producing an hour of television.
So, films are more expensive to produce than TV shows per hour. Wouldn’t we still expect TV show execs to want more profits and for more viewership to serve that purpose? They might not need to make as much as films do to make a profit, but we’d still expect them to want viewers.
D
Television shows make their profits from sponsors, who are chiefly concerned with the purchasing power of the people who watch a television show.
This tells us something that differentiates TV shows from movies in a way that could affect TV executives’ goal. Since TV profits come from sponsors (rather than from ticket sales), TV executives might prioritize reaching rich viewers rather than the number of viewers.
E
Over half of the most popular television shows are shows that viewers do not have to pay to watch.
This still leaves a significant portion of TV shows that could require payment to watch. We’d still expect TV executives to want to maximize viewership of these shows. Why don’t they? This answer doesn’t provide a potential explanation.

16 comments

One thousand people in Denmark were questioned about their views on banning cigarette advertising. The sample comprised adults who are representative of the general population, and who, ten years previously, had been questioned on the same issue. Interestingly, their opinions changed little. Results show that 31 percent are in favor of such a ban, 24 percent are against it, 38 percent are in favor, but only for certain media, and 7 percent have no opinion.

Summary
A study in Denmark examined people’s views on banning cigarette advertising. The sample was asked similar questions ten years ago, and their answers did not change much. 31% were in favor of the ban, 24% were against it, 38% were in favor, but only for certain types of media, and 7% had no opinion.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Most of Denmark’s population supports some form of a ban on cigarette advertising.

A
People’s opinions never change very much.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that people’s views on this issue did not change very much, not that people’s opinions *never* change on everything else.
B
A minority of Denmark’s population feels that banning cigarette advertising would set a bad precedent.
There is no support for *why* the people who oppose the ban. They might just really enjoy cigarette advertisements.
C
Most of Denmark’s population is not seriously concerned about cigarette advertising.
There is information about the percentage of people who are “seriously concerned.” Also, most of the respondents were in favor of some form of ban.
D
Most of Denmark’s population favors some sort of ban on cigarette advertising.
31% + 38% = 69% (a majority) of the population. Although the 38% have some reservations about the ban’s implementation, they still support some form of the ban.
E
Most of Denmark’s population does not smoke cigarettes.
There is no information about the percentage of Denmark’s population that smokes. You must assume that if you are in favor of a ban, you do not smoke.

63 comments

Frankie: If jelly makers were given incentives to make a certain percentage of their jellies from cloudberries, income for cloudberry gatherers would increase.

Anna: That plan would fail. Cacao, like cloudberries, was once harvested from wild plants. When chocolate became popular in Europe, the cacao gatherers could not supply enough to meet the increased demand, and farmers began to grow large quantities of it at low cost. Now all cacao used in commercial chocolate production is grown on farms. Likewise, if the demand for cloudberries increases, domesticated berries grown on farms will completely supplant berries gathered in the wild.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Anna concludes if demand for cloudberries increases, then domesticated berries would completely replace wild berries. As evidence, Anna points to what happened in the past with cacao. Cacao was harvested from wild plants until it became popular in Europe. As a result, cacao gatherers could not meet demand and farms began growing large quantities at low cost. Now all cacao used in commercial chocolate production comes from farms, not wild plants.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Anna concludes a cause-and-effect relationship based on what happened in an analogous case. She does this by showing what happened in the past with cacao, and suggests if demand increases for cloudberries in a similar way to cacao the same effect would occur.

A
giving a reason why a proposed course of action would be beneficial to all those affected by it
Anna does not claim Frankie’s proposed course of action would be beneficial to everyone. She believes that Frankie’s proposal would hurt cloudberry gatherers because increased demand would cause the berries to strictly be grown on domestic farms.
B
reinterpreting evidence presented in support of a proposal as a reason to reject the proposal
Anna does not reinterpret any evidence. In fact, Frankie does not provide any evidence for Anna to reinterpret. Anna is the only one who gave evidence in support of her conclusion.
C
projecting the result of following a proposal in a given situation by comparing that situation with a past situation
The past situation being compared is what happened with cacao. The projected result is Anna’s predicted consequence of increasing the demand for cloudberries, resulting in domesticated berries completely replacing wild berries.
D
proposing a general theory as a way of explaining a specific market situation
Anna does not propose a general theory. She cites specific evidence of a past situation in order to make comparisons.
E
contending that the uses for one product are similar to the uses for another product
Anna does not address the subject of use.

12 comments

The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally, when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Deep-sea photographs, taken of the sunken Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that the Rienzi did not implode.

Summary
The Rienzi sank because it had a hole. It descended rapidly. Usually, ships that sink this fast don’t fully flood by the time they reach the ocean floor, which makes them implode. The Rienzi did not implode. Sabotage can cause a ship to flood fully.

Notable Valid Inferences
The Rienzi must have fully flooded by the time it was deep in the ocean—we know this because if it hadn’t flooded fully, it would have imploded. We cannot conclude what caused the full flooding, but we can infer that it was either sabotage or that the Rienzi filled with water faster than normal.

A
The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact.
This could be false. The stimulus does not offer any information about how the Rienzi was constructed.
B
If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor.
This must be false. We know the Rienzi must have fully flooded when it reached the ocean floor or it would have imploded.
C
If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast.
This must be true. We know the Rienzi fully flooded by the time it reached the ocean floor—this means it was either sabotaged to allow for full flooding or water entered the ship faster than normal.
D
If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly, it would have imploded.
This could be false. We don’t know if the rate at which the Rienzi sunk caused the ship not to flood fully, and whether changing the rate would affect this outcome.
E
The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.
This could be false. The stimulus does not offer any information about how the Rienzi was constructed.

50 comments