Q9 - Myrna responds to Roland by...

[RichardN82]

I had a hunch it was (B) but passed and chose (E) for reasons I still scratch my head at. However, if someone could better clarify this question for me, that would be great.

Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

The question wants us to describe Myrna's response, so we basically just need to make sure we understood the conversation and then pick any answer choice that correctly describes the conversation.

They're debating whether it's worth cutting back on fat in order to gain certain health benefits.

Roland says, "not worth it. The health benefit of extended life is so minimal."

Myrna says, "it IS worth it. Extended life isn't the only health benefit. You ALSO can avoid suffering from chronic diseases (they might not shorten your life, but they sure make it less comfortable)."

(A) No. Myrna does not push back against the truth of any of Roland's facts. Instead she says, "True, Roland. But there's more to consider ..."

(B) Sure. "Extension of life" is not the only relevant health benefit to consider. "Avoiding unpleasant chronic diseases" is another relevant health benefit of cutting back on fat.

(C) No. This is essentially the same answer as (A) and is wrong for the same reason.

(D) No. This has the same feel as (A) and (C). She doesn't say he's wrong about the supporting evidence. She's only saying that there's something ELSE that cutting back on fat would do to improve our health.

(E) This refers to a circular argument, which means that the premise and the conclusion are essentially the same thing. Roland's argument has actual premises: he cites some statistics. Without the statistics, this answer isn't terrible. If his argument had ONLY been, "Modifying our diet is not worthwhile. A lifetime of sacrifice spent eating an unappealing low-fat diet is not worth whatever gains it would provide." then (E) would be okay.

Conc: this diet isn't worth it.
why?
Prem: because this diet just wouldn't be worth it.