All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  A team of Swedish scientists recently conclud... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer. Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids. Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.


In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

  • a)
    The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.

  • b)
    The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.

  • c)
    The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.

  • d)
    The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.

  • e)
    The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study o...
In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
There is no evidence the first portion is an opinion. And the second part seems to be a fact that was previously known. Wrong.
(B) The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.
The argument is that increasing intake of fatty fish -> lowering rate of kidney cancer. The first BF states that this relationship is inconclusive and hence it goes against the argument or at the least does not support it. The second part uses logic to prove the opposite of consuming fatty fish. Correct
(C) The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
The scientists are trying to solve whether fatty fish intake affects rate of kidney cancer.The first BF does not directly present this as a quandary. Wrong
(D) The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
As stated above the first BF at best does not support the argument. The second piece at best supports the claim by logically deducing what would happen by consuming non fatty fish. Wrong
(E) The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
The first BF does not explain anything but presents information that goes against the conclusion. Wrong
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study o...
In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.
There is no evidence the first portion is an opinion. And the second part seems to be a fact that was previously known. Wrong.
(B) The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.
The argument is that increasing intake of fatty fish -> lowering rate of kidney cancer. The first BF states that this relationship is inconclusive and hence it goes against the argument or at the least does not support it. The second part uses logic to prove the opposite of consuming fatty fish. Correct
(C) The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.
The scientists are trying to solve whether fatty fish intake affects rate of kidney cancer.The first BF does not directly present this as a quandary. Wrong
(D) The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.
As stated above the first BF at best does not support the argument. The second piece at best supports the claim by logically deducing what would happen by consuming non fatty fish. Wrong
(E) The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.
The first BF does not explain anything but presents information that goes against the conclusion. Wrong
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study o...
Overview of the Boldface Portions
The boldface portions in the statement reflect key components of the argument regarding fatty fish consumption and its relationship to kidney cancer risk.
First Boldface Portion
- This portion asserts that previous studies on fatty fish and kidney cancer have been inconclusive.
- This fact counters the argument by highlighting a lack of consistent evidence in the field, suggesting uncertainty around the relationship between fish consumption and kidney cancer.
Second Boldface Portion
- This part indicates that those consuming lean fish have the same risk of developing renal cell carcinoma as those who eat no fish.
- It serves as evidence that lean fish does not confer any protective benefits against kidney cancer, thereby supporting the conclusion that only fatty fish consumption is beneficial.
Role of Each Portion
- The first boldface portion (inconclusive studies) serves as a fact that challenges the overall argument presented by the Swedish scientists, indicating that there is a history of uncertainty in this area.
- The second boldface portion is an element of the logical argument, reinforcing the scientists' claim that fatty fish (rich in omega-3) is beneficial while lean fish offers no protective effect.
Conclusion
Thus, option 'B' is correct because it accurately identifies the first boldface portion as a fact that undermines the argument, while the second boldface portion stands as supporting evidence for the scientists' conclusions regarding fatty fish and kidney cancer risk.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Each multi-source reasoning question is based on a series of information contained in text, charts, or tables. For each practice you should examine the relevant information and select the best answer of the choices given. Article - 1 News article in an environmental publication. July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research. Article - 2 Interview with a well-known scientist. August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold. “I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.” Article - 3 Article from a weekly news magazine. August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price. Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated? Q.If the change in oil price continues trending in the exact same way, by 2055, the price of oil will be 2000% higher than where it is now.

Directions: Each multi-source reasoning question is based on a series of information contained in text, charts, or tables. For each practice you should examine the relevant information and select the best answer of the choices given. Article - 1 News article in an environmental publication. July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research. Article - 2 Interview with a well-known scientist. August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold. “I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.” Article - 3 Article from a weekly news magazine. August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price. Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated? Q.Dr. Goodman would likely support a public referendum on whether to require the oil companies to have better safety and ecological regulations.

Directions: Each multi-source reasoning question is based on a series of information contained in text, charts, or tables. For each practice you should examine the relevant information and select the best answer of the choices given.Article - 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article - 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article - 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.Politicians usually do not agree with one another on issues of global warming and fossil fuel consumption.

Directions: Each multi-source reasoning question is based on a series of information contained in text, charts, or tables. For each practice you should examine the relevant information and select the best answer of the choices given.Article - 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article - 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article - 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.Politicians are unlikely to press the public to vote for unpopular measures.

Directions: Each multi-source reasoning question is based on a series of information contained in text, charts, or tables. For each practice you should examine the relevant information and select the best answer of the choices given.Article - 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article - 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article - 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.An increase in worldwide demand for crude oil has made the oil companies safety standards fall.

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study on the relationship between fatty or lean fish consumption and the risk of kidney cancer; the study revealed that those who ate on average more than one serving per week of fatty fish had 44 percent less risk for developing renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.Though all previous studies on the relationship between fatty fish and the prevalence of kidney cancer have been inconclusive, the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids.Lean fish is rarely rich in omega 3’s, and those in the study who ate lean fish had the same risk for developing renal cell carcinoma as those who ate no fish at all.In the statement above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?a)The first is an opinion that is supported by the argument; the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study.b)The first is a fact that goes against the argument that is being presented; the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim.c)The first presents the quandary the scientists are attempting to solve; the second is the result of that quandary.d)The first is a claim in support of the argument; the second is a piece of evidence against the argument.e)The first is an explanation advocated by the argument; the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup