Just to be clear, this is an Assumption question and not a Justify the Conclusion question.
Remember that an assumption is simply an unstated premise- what must be true in order for the argument to be true. Also remember that arguments that use surveys rely upon the validity of those surveys for these types of questions. And so answer choices which strengthen or assume the survey's soundness, are often the correct answer choice.
This particular stimuli is arguing cause and effect. So it's important to keep in mind that the stimuli (which we accept as true) argues that fish oil consumption actually causes lowered incidence of heart disease. So what the surveyed participants who are eating fish oil are otherwise eating is not relevant to what is necessary for the argument to be true. Rather, what is necessary is eliminating a competing cause for the necessary effect. That effect being lower heart disease.
(D) is also arguably not just eliminating a competing cause, it is also supporting or proving the data used in the premise's survey which is another characteristic of a classic "right" answer choice in a question of this type.
Thanks for the great question!
#11 - Scientists have long thought that omega-3 fatty acids
I don't understand why B was eliminated because of the development of heart disease and diet which wasn't mentioned in the stimulus, but that that D is the correct answer and talks about exercise and cardiorespiratory health which isn't mentioned in the stimulus so I don't get why B which seems to resemble information in the stimulus the closet is wrong and why D is right when it includes new information not addressed in the stimulus.
Would you please explain how negation technique apply to answer choice D ?
To logically negate this answer choice simply remove the word "not" from the answer choice. doing so would tell us that the people who eat fish regularly help out their heart health in ways not related to fish. This would provide an alternate explanation for why they suffer fewer heart attacks.
Hi Clay! Thanks for answering. I hope you (or someone else) can clarify one thing. When I read answer choice B originally, I think I misread the sentence (my apologizes, English is not my first language). When the answer choice reads, "... conducive to the development of heart disease," does this mean that the diet is harmful to the heart (e.g. a diet of red meat)?
I read the sentence as a diet that helps positively augment cardio-respiratory health (like in answer choice D). Now, I think this was an incorrect reading.
Yep, you're spot on. "Conducive to the development of heart disease" means "contributes to the development of heart disease." Hope that helps make Clay's answer clearer.