Q24 - Dietician: The "French Paradox"

[kimnamil14]

I get why B is the right one, but am confused as to why exactly E is a wrong one. Is it because the supposed causal relationship between being healthy and drinking more red wine is not addressed in B?

Thanks so much!

[aileenann]

I can see why you might not eliminate (E) right away. It does slightly undermine the dietician's argument by suggesting that red wine is certainly not necessary to lowering heart disease.

But let's be clear - that's not the dietician's argument! Far from it, the dietician is merely saying this is an example way to lower heart disease - and further that Americans should follow it. This in no way implies that this is the *best* way or that there aren't *other* alternatives. Therefore, even if (E) is true, the dietician's argument still looks pretty good. (E) would have been a better answer if the dietician made these stronger claims I just discusssed, but he didn't.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have more questions or thoughts on this one.

[dayme11]

I do not get why the answer is not A. Wouldn't A undermine the argument by showing that even if you consume wine it won't have the same effect on everyone i.e. men have a higher rate vs. women although both consume same amount of wine. So even if North Americans consume wine it won't have the same effect as it does on the French.

[aileenann]

You have to read (A) in the context of what the dietician says. Even if the red wine does not work as well on the French men as it does on the French women (and we don't know this - it might just be that French men have some other bad habit that undermines the good effects of the red wine), this doesn't mean it doesn't work. A differential effect does not undermine the claim of a beneficial effect.

If you think about it, this response would be the same as the following:

The fact that runners have lower blood pressure than non runners doesn't prove anything because male runners have lower blood pressure than female runners.

Well even if that latter bit is true, there could still be a beneficial effect. Beneficial effects don't have to be the same for everyone - what's important is that on average one group of people does better than the other.

I hope this makes sense! Let me know if you have additional questions

[highrollin01]

The reason I think that B is the superior answer is because the argument concludes by sneakily saying "if you want to be HEALTHIER without ..... So if B is true, consumption of wine will produce unhealthiness buy messing up the wine drinkers liver and increasing illnesses. Answers A/E COULD weaken the argument if the argument concluded by saying "if you want to reduce risk of heart disease".

Not sure if 100% correct, but this was my logic towards the Correct Response..

[LSAT-Chang]

The reason I think that B is the superior answer is because the argument concludes by sneakily saying "if you want to be HEALTHIER without ..... So if B is true, consumption of wine will produce unhealthiness buy messing up the wine drinkers liver and increasing illnesses. Answers A/E COULD weaken the argument if the argument concluded by saying "if you want to reduce risk of heart disease".

Not sure if 100% correct, but this was my logic towards the Correct Response..

I completely agree with you. That was the same reason I chose (B). As soon as I read the author's conclusion, I thought "ah hah, the author is equating low incidence of heart disease with being healthier" -- when in fact, we all know that there could be people out there who don't have heart disease but are in terrible health conditions (cancer or liver problems due to smoking for example) so I immediately was thinking of an answer choice that would disprove this by saying how red wine consumption for North Americans would not lead to them being "healthier", and (B) does this quite nicely.

[dukematt588]

can anyone explain why D is incorrect? I think it may be because the answer choice "suggests" but I'm not sure.

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey, there.

The reason (D) is out of scope is that the conclusion is only trying to prove that drinking more red wine would make you healthier.

The conclusion is NOT claiming that drinking red wine is the healthiest route to better health.

So you can't weaken the claim that red wine makes you healthier by saying, "Something else is an even better way of making you healthy."

The only way to argue against the idea that "red wine makes you healthier" is to create a counterargument that "red wine does NOT make you healthier".

(B) is correct because it gives us a way to argue that red wine does not, in fact, make you healthier. (The argument being that even if red wine ameliorates some of the effects of fat intake, red wine contributes to other problems that would result in a net reduction of health).

Hope this makes sense. Let me know if not.

[schmid215]

Seems like (D) is also out of scope because it entails low fat, whereas the dietician's argument is about how to get healthier while not cutting fat.

[blairped]

Can someone please explain why answers C and E don't undermine the argument?

Thanks in advance.......

[maryadkins]

(C) doesn't matter because if one or a few French people don't eat fat and drink red wine, so what? We're TOLD that the French overall consume more of both than Americans. That's what the argument is about — rates. It doesn't say anything about every single person having to do anything.

And did you see Aileen's notes on (E)? She nails it:

I can see why you might not eliminate (E) right away. It does slightly undermine the dietician's argument by suggesting that red wine is certainly not necessary to lowering heart disease.

But let's be clear - that's not the dietician's argument! Far from it, the dietician is merely saying this is an example way to lower heart disease - and further that Americans should follow it. This in no way implies that this is the *best* way or that there aren't *other* alternatives. Therefore, even if (E) is true, the dietician's argument still looks pretty good. (E) would have been a better answer if the dietician made these stronger claims I just discusssed, but he didn't.

[seychelles1718]

If another answer choice, for example, says, "many other regions where people drink even more red wine than do French have much higher rates of heart disease," would this weaken the argument or not?

I think it could weaken because it states more red wine lead to worse health, and the dietician says drinking more red wine will DEFINITELY lead to being healthier, although he never says more red wine will definitely lead to lower incidence of heart disease.

Could someone please help me with my question?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

Yes, it would be a weakener. I don't think it'd be a better choice than (B) though. (B) nails it: it talks about North Americans specifically and says it would be bad for them. That's a pretty solid weakener. The one you created would just be more evidence from somewhere else. But again, yes, your hypo would weaken!

[weid247]

I can see why you might not eliminate (E) right away. It does slightly undermine the dietician's argument by suggesting that red wine is certainly not necessary to lowering heart disease.

But let's be clear - that's not the dietician's argument! Far from it, the dietician is merely saying this is an example way to lower heart disease - and further that Americans should follow it. This in no way implies that this is the *best* way or that there aren't *other* alternatives. Therefore, even if (E) is true, the dietician's argument still looks pretty good. (E) would have been a better answer if the dietician made these stronger claims I just discusssed, but he didn't.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have more questions or thoughts on this one.

I explain another way to explain why E is not a weakener for the conclusion “if you want to healthy and keep fat intake then please drink more red wine”

E said many other regions keep lower heart disease but drink less red wine than USA. But it does not talk about whether they keep fat intake. Author conclusion is keep fat intake and healthy then drink more wine. If do not refer to other regions fat intake, then it it irrelevant.

[weid247]

Hey, there.

The reason (D) is out of scope is that the conclusion is only trying to prove that drinking more red wine would make you healthier.

The conclusion is NOT claiming that drinking red wine is the healthiest route to better health.

So you can't weaken the claim that red wine makes you healthier by saying, "Something else is an even better way of making you healthy."

The only way to argue against the idea that "red wine makes you healthier" is to create a counterargument that "red wine does NOT make you healthier".

(B) is correct because it gives us a way to argue that red wine does not, in fact, make you healthier. (The argument being that even if red wine ameliorates some of the effects of fat intake, red wine contributes to other problems that would result in a net reduction of health).

Hope this makes sense. Let me know if not.

I don’t agree your reasoning of why D is wrong as a choice.

The conclusion is if you want healthy and keep fat intake, then please drink more wine. It is said the other ways to let USA people healthy and keep fat intake is actually weaken the conclusion because drinking more wine is not necessary.

The real problem of D is the healthiest way and low fat diet. The healthiest way do not really weaken the conclusion you should drink more red wine. Another problem of D is the healthiest way is to do exercise and keep low fat diet. But the premise is keep fat intake. This best way is inconsistent with the argument, so it is not a optional solution. It do not a weakener.