Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument in the newspaper article?

A – The reduction in risk of haemophilia due to the consumption of vitamin D is no greater than the reduction due to certain other dietary changes.

B – Taking both vitamin D supplements and vitamin E supplements lowers one’s risk of haemophilia far more than does taking either one alone.

C – High doses of vitamin D supplements tend to reduce one’s resistance to certain common infectious diseases.

D – Taking vitamin D supplements has been found to lower one’s risk of developing cancer.

E – vitamin D taken in the form of supplements has a different effect on the body than does vitamin D taken in food.

OA : C

Explanation : The conclusion of the argument is that people who take vitamin D supplements tend to live a healthier life. This is based on a study on 8000 people and the fact that taking large doses of vitamin D helped reduce the risk of haemophilia. The gap here is that lowering the risk of haemophilia is not the same as having a healthier life. There might be other ill effects associated with taking vitamin D supplements that might make it less likely to lead to a healthier life. 

A – ‘other dietary changes’ is out of scope, we aren’t really bothered about haemophilia anymore either, we need to weaken the link between lower rate of hemophilia and being more healthy. 

B – That taking vitamin E as well as K supplement is more effective, does not relate to ‘healthy’ or the efficacy of vitamin D leading to a healthier life. 

C – This correctly shows a side-effect of taking vitamin D supplements. This could lead to a less healthy life as opposed to not taking this supplement at all. 

D – This shows a benefit and not a demerit of the supplement. Eliminate. 

E – ‘vitamin D’ through ‘food’ is out of scope ‘different’ doesn’t mean worse. Eliminate.


Talk to an expert?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.