Individual Passage #9 Question #1

[sdb606]

Individual passage 9 q1, p 208/262

I'm having trouble understanding the reasoning behind why B is the answer. The passage devotes only two sentences to explaining why low-carb diets are bad (lines 30-34). Can't I argue from this lack of coverage that this is not the primary purpose of the passage?

In the book's explanation (p 262), it says, "The last sentence of this first paragraph is critical, as it captures the main point of the passage." The referenced sentence says nothing about low-carb diets but says obsession with sugar detracts from focusing on sodium, which should make C the answer.

I actually thought the MP was to advocate for what the author believes to be a well-balanced diet (lines 39-45). The whole sodium and fad diet discussion is to support the conclusion that a well-balanced diet uses natural foods, etc. Why isn't this the main point?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi sdb,

I guess my first question would be, is there a better answer choice than B, even granting your alternative reading of the main point? In other words, does one of the other answers better conform to the main point you prephrased? I don't think so, because all the remaining answers here focus solely on either sodium or sugar (or both). None of the other answers goes to the holistic, "good nutrition in general" issue that would conform to your prephrased main point. So, do what we always do (especially on RC questions, even more especially on Global RC questions!) when the answers aren't the perfect ones you were hoping for: find the best one. That's definitely answer choice B here.

Think about the overall structure of the passage when arriving at the main point here: the first paragraph addresses the question of whether sugar is harmful (author: sometimes yes, sometimes no). The second paragraph addresses the question of whether sodium is harmful (same answer from the author). But by the time I get to the end of the second paragraph, I'm asking the question, "so what?" The end of the first paragraph prepared me for the "so what," by suggesting this technical discussion is about dietary balance of the two substances (obsession with sugar can lead to imbalance with sodium). But the beginning of the third paragraph really ties it all together for me and shows how obsession with sugar actually is currently leading to such an imbalance: "Unfortunately (this is a key, adverbial indicator of the author's viewpoint!), by limiting the intake of sugar, many of today's 'fad diets' inadvertently increase the consumption of sodium." There's the "so what." The whole reason the author has been giving me a lecture on the evils of sodium (after mentioning at the beginning some of the evils of sugar) is to explain why fad diets are doing people a disservice.

The end of the final paragraph is a way of emphasizing that the specific focus of the author (fad diets and their dangerous over-reliance on sodium) is something that is really a long-established problem. Dietary imbalance is a persistent feature of our current situation. Is that the main point? No, not really. It's just an additional premise, a further reason for us to buy into the author's main concern (that we don't overbalance sodium in our desire to purge sugar from our diets). Good nutrition is always balanced. So don't let your sugar/sodium intake get too imbalanced!

I hope this helps!