CR : Studies have shown that people who keep daily

[jonathanc]

Studies have shown that people who keep daily diet records are far more successful at losing weight than people who don’t keep track of what they eat. Researchers believe that many weight-loss efforts fail because people eat more calories than they intend to consume. One study followed a group of patients who reported that they could not lose weight when consuming only 1,200 calories a day. The study found that the group consumed, on average, 47% more than it claimed and exercised 51% less. In contrast, when dieters record what they eat, their actual consumption more closely matches their reported consumption.

The two boldface portions in the argument above are best described by which of the following statements?

a)The first is a conclusion reached by researchers; the second is evidence that that conclusion is correct.
b)The first is an explanation of why a certain theory is thought to be true; the second is an example of research results that support this theory.
c)The first is an example illustrating the truth of a certain theory; the second is a competing theory.
d)The first is a premise upon which the researchers base their opinion; the second illustrates that their opinion is correct.
e)The first introduces a theory that the researchers have disproved; the second is the basis for the researchers’ argument.


I had this question in MGMAT CAT. The OA is D.

I was a little bit confused by this question, I couldnt reasonably make any choice as I did think about all of them as being partially (or totally ) wrong , and I endded up by choosing A. My main point was that I couldnt decide myself if the Study of the first sentence "Studies have shown..." included the following study "One study...." if yes thus it should be the conclusion of the searcher if not thus it is not the conclusion of the searche.

Here is the official correction for answer D :

"CORRECT. The first boldface (diet record = diet success) is a basis for the researchers’ conclusion that many weight-loss efforts fail because people consume more than they intended. The second boldface directly illustrates how weight-loss efforts of a certain group failed for exactly that reason."

My problem with this sentence is I dont understand how we can link the searcher with the studies of the first sentence. The answer D tell us that the first boldface is a premise for the searcher conclusion, but I dont know how we can actually consider that the searcher used these research as a premise, instead it is more logical to think that if the study show something then it is the conclusion of the searchers who made them... NOTHING tell us that the searcher actually knew or used these study before reaching the conclusion stated in the second sentence... For me these two sentences come together and are both part of a same conlcusion...

I see the tenses can be a clue because one is written as "have shown" while the searcher actually "believe".

Is it possible to confirm me that the main indicator that the searcher actually used the Former study to reach their conclusion is actually the tense of the verb ? If not how can you infer that the searcher used the conclusion of the former study to reach their own conclusion ? and why the "one study" is not included in the "Studies have shown"


I just want to add an example to show what I dont understand in the relation bewteen Searcher conclusion and researchs, consider the example :

Researchs have shown that dinosaurs existed billions of years before human walked on earth. Christians believe that God created earth and putted every living creatures in 7 days on it.

Here clearly Christian don't care about dinosaurs researches even if they started to believe in what they believe BEFORE the actual researchs on dinosaurs. Why in the statement should we assume that .

an other example without contradiction btw first and second sentence :

Researchs have shown that dinosaurs existed billions of years before human walked on earth. Mika doesn't believe in god and think that every dinosaurs were purple with yellow stains.

Maybe Mika doesnt believe in god because he thinks that free will is uncompatible omniscient god and by the way he have an opinion on dinosaur's colour but none of this is related to the researches on dinosaurs.

Sorry for my unclear question.

John

[RonPurewal]

hi - wow, your post has a lot of words. i will do my best to address what i think are the main queries.

I dont know how we can actually consider that the searcher used these research as a premise, instead it is more logical to think that if the study show something then it is the conclusion of the searchers who made them...

nope.

there's a VERY important distinction at work here:
* studies show facts. (this is what studies do - they show facts. they may find patterns in other facts, but those patterns are still ... facts)
* CONCLUSIONS are CLAIMS, never facts.
facts don't need arguments at all, so an "argument" whose conclusion consisted of facts would be wholly superfluous.

NOTHING tell us that the searcher actually knew or used these study before reaching the conclusion stated in the second sentence...

here you are right, in a certain manner of speaking, but also somewhat misguided.

you are right in that the passage should probably mention that the researchers used the study.
on the other hand, you should be LOOKING FOR THE CONNECTIONS between the statements in a question like this one. this is an analyze argument problem, which depends upon your being able to recognize points of connection among disparate statements. so, look for those points of connection!

I just want to add an example to show what I dont understand in the relation bewteen Searcher conclusion and researchs, consider the example :

Researchs have shown that dinosaurs existed billions of years before human walked on earth. Christians believe that God created earth and putted every living creatures in 7 days on it.

...

an other example without contradiction btw first and second sentence :

Researchs have shown that dinosaurs existed billions of years before human walked on earth. Mika doesn't believe in god and think that every dinosaurs were purple with yellow stains.

these sorts of things won't happen in a single, unitary CR passage. they just won't. you will NOT have a single paragraph containing statements that are mutually exclusive.

you may see this in the "2 different arguments" context, though. for instance, you may get
A: Dinosaurs have been around for billions of years.
B: Not true. Dinosaurs were created by God eight thousand years ago, along with everything else.

in this case, you would then explicitly be called upon to analyze the interplay between these two.

[roshin.nair]

Ron, I had the same question come up in my CAT but with different set of options.

A) The first is a theory held by certain researchers; the second proves the truth of that theory.
B) The first is an explanation of why a certain theory is thought to be true; the second is an example of research results that support this theory.
C) The first introduces an example illustrating the truth of a certain theory; the second is an alternate theory.
D) The first is an observation that researchers hold to be true; the second provides evidence to substantiate the researchers’ explanation for that observation.
E) The first demonstrates a cause-effect relationship discovered by the researchers; the second is the basis for the researchers’ argument.

The correct answer is D, but I wonder why option A cant be correct.

Isnt boldface1 a theory and boldface2 proving the truth of that theory.
What is the distinction between a "Theory" and an "Observation".

Thanking you in advance,
Roshin

[jnelson0612]

Hi Roshin,
A theory and an observation are two separate things.

An observation: I have noticed that my cat meows when I take out her food.

A theory: I believe that she sees the food and becomes excited about eating, causing her to meow.

An observation is simply noting that something is occurring. A theory is an attempt to explain the phenomenon that we are noticing. I hope that this helps!

[davetzulin]

e)The first introduces a theory that the researchers have disproved; the second is the basis for the researchers’ argument.

answer explanation for why this is incorrect is:

The first boldface does not demonstrate a cause-effect relationship; rather, it represents two pieces of data which are merely correlated.

having a bit of trouble trying to differentiate causation/correlation..

especially since the question said "studies demonstrated". i felt that if they "demonstrated" something, it is more than just "presenting" two sets of data?

i completely agree that D is correct, i just was stuck between D/E

thanks!

[tim]

are you asking a question here?

[davetzulin]

are you asking a question here?

Sorry Tim my post was cryptic. In any case I think I know the answer now, thanks for responding though.

[tim]

no worries. let us know if you have any further questions on this one..

[miteshsholay]

"Researchers believe that this occurs because people who don't record their diets eat more calories than they intend to consume."

Is this a theory pertaining to the given argument?

[miteshsholay]

"Researchers believe that this occurs because people who don't record their diets eat more calories than they intend to consume."

Is this a theory pertaining to the given argument?

Please ignore this query.
I got the answer when i read the official explanation.

[jnelson0612]

"Researchers believe that this occurs because people who don't record their diets eat more calories than they intend to consume."

Is this a theory pertaining to the given argument?

Please ignore this query.
I got the answer when i read the official explanation.

Okay, glad that you are squared away!

[JbhB682]

Hi Sage -- I agree with Ron on Bold Face 1 -- studies are "Facts"

Just curious,

Q1) Can facts ever play the role of intermediate conclusion in your view ?

Facts can play the role of the premise per my understanding but can facts be considered "intermediate conclusions" in your view ?

Q2) What in this argument suggests that Bold face 1 (Which is a fact) is also playing the role of a premise.

"Facts" can certainly be background information playing no role in the author's claim. It seemed to me that BF 1 is a fact but was almost like "background information", not playing the role of a premise specifically

Thanks

[esledge]

Q1) Can facts ever play the role of intermediate conclusion in your view ?

Facts can play the role of the premise per my understanding but can facts be considered "intermediate conclusions" in your view ?

Conclusions must be opinions, not a matter of fact. My litmus test is that it can be a conclusion if and only if a reasonable person could think differently. So, "it will rain tomorrow" could be a conclusion (I might look at certain data and say that it will, but you might look at other data and say that it won't), but "it is raining now" is a fact.

Q2) What in this argument suggests that Bold face 1 (Which is a fact) is also playing the role of a premise.

"Facts" can certainly be background information playing no role in the author's claim. It seemed to me that BF 1 is a fact but was almost like "background information", not playing the role of a premise specifically

Either facts or opinions ("intermediate conclusions") can serve as premises. This is determined by how they relate to the conclusion.
--If something (fact or opinion) supports the conclusion, it is a premise.
--If something (fact or opinion) weighs against the conclusion, it is a counterpremise.
--If something in the text does nothing to the conclusion, it is background. Background is typically facts only; I can't recall ever having seen any opinionated background info.

So that's why BF1 is not really background here; it's not neutral enough. All other things equal, BF1 makes the argument stronger, so it supports the conclusion.

Truly neutral background would be something like "All humans have caloric requirements," as it doesn't sway the argument (about the importance/effect of tracking calories) either way.

[JbhB682]

Q1) Can facts ever play the role of intermediate conclusion in your view ?

Facts can play the role of the premise per my understanding but can facts be considered "intermediate conclusions" in your view ?

Conclusions must be opinions, not a matter of fact. My litmus test is that it can be a conclusion if and only if a reasonable person could think differently. So, "it will rain tomorrow" could be a conclusion (I might look at certain data and say that it will, but you might look at other data and say that it won't), but "it is raining now" is a fact.

Thank you Emily - If i can summarize what was said above specifically :

i) Fact's can never be intermediate conclusion's (as an intermediate conclusion is in a way, an opinion or a claim -- just not the final claim of the author, the final claim is the final conclusion)

ii) Facts and Intermediate conclusions (albeit, mutually exclusive) can both play the role of premises towards the final conclusion

[esledge]

That's a succinct and accurate summary, thanks!