Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. Human beings undoubtedly evolved to...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Sasha: It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats. Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.

Jamal: But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.

Jamal responds to Sasha by doing which of the following?

Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors

Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion

Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it

Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution

Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
It must be healthy to follow a diet high in animal proteins and fats.	What it says: Claims that diets high in animal proteins and fats are healthy What it does: Sets up Sasha's main conclusion about diet and health What it is: Sasha's main claim
Human beings undoubtedly evolved to thrive on such a diet, since our prehistoric ancestors ate large amounts of meat.	What it says: Argues we evolved to thrive on high-protein diets because our ancestors ate lots of meat What it does: Provides evolutionary evidence to support the health claim about animal protein diets What it is: Sasha's premise and reasoning
But our ancestors also exerted themselves intensely in order to obtain this food, whereas most human beings today are much less physically active.	What it says: Points out that ancestors worked much harder physically to get their food, while modern people are less active What it does: Challenges Sasha's reasoning by highlighting a key difference between past and present circumstances What it is: Jamal's counterargument Visualization: Prehistoric ancestors: High meat diet + Intense physical activity vs. Modern humans: High meat diet + Low physical activity

Argument Flow:

Sasha makes a claim about diet health, supports it with evolutionary evidence, then Jamal responds by pointing out a crucial difference between past and present that weakens Sasha's reasoning.

Main Conclusion:

Sasha concludes that diets high in animal proteins and fats must be healthy.

Logical Structure:

Sasha uses evolutionary reasoning (ancestors ate meat → we evolved to thrive on it → it must be healthy), but Jamal attacks this reasoning by showing the analogy is flawed - ancestors had different activity levels that made their situation fundamentally different from ours today.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc. - This is asking us to identify what Jamal is doing in his response to Sasha's argument. We need to understand the role or function of Jamal's statement.

Precision of Claims

Sasha makes a definitive claim about health benefits ('must be healthy') based on evolutionary reasoning. Jamal introduces a contrast between ancestral activity levels (intense exertion) versus modern activity levels (much less physically active).

Strategy

For this question type, we need to analyze what argumentative technique or logical move Jamal is making. We should look at how Jamal's response relates to Sasha's reasoning structure. Sasha argues: ancestors ate meat → we evolved for this diet → therefore it's healthy for us. Jamal points out a key difference between ancestral and modern contexts that could affect this reasoning.

Answer Choices Explained

Refuting her statement about our prehistoric ancestors

This is incorrect because Jamal doesn't refute or deny Sasha's statement about prehistoric ancestors eating large amounts of meat. He actually accepts this premise and builds upon it by adding more information about how those ancestors lived. Refuting would mean saying her facts are wrong, but Jamal agrees ancestors ate meat - he just points out additional context.

Bringing forth a piece of information for the purpose of suggesting that she should qualify her main conclusion

This is correct. Jamal brings forth new information (ancestors exerted themselves intensely vs. modern humans being less active) for the purpose of suggesting that Sasha should qualify her main conclusion. Her conclusion that it 'must be healthy' is too absolute - Jamal's point implies she should modify it to account for activity level differences between past and present.

Citing additional evidence that indirectly supports her conclusion and suggests a way to broaden it

This is wrong because Jamal's information doesn't support Sasha's conclusion at all. Actually, it works against her reasoning by highlighting a key difference that might make the ancestral diet less applicable to modern humans. He's not trying to broaden her conclusion but rather suggesting it needs qualification.

Questioning whether her assumption about our prehistoric ancestors permits any conclusions about human evolution

This is incorrect because Jamal doesn't question whether her assumption permits conclusions about evolution. He accepts her evolutionary premise but points out that there's an important contextual difference (activity levels) that affects how we should apply those evolutionary insights to modern dietary recommendations.

Expressing doubts about whether most human beings today are as healthy as our prehistoric ancestors were

This is wrong because Jamal doesn't express any doubts about comparative health between prehistoric ancestors and modern humans. His point is specifically about activity levels and their relevance to diet, not about who was healthier overall.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...