In a recent study of more than 400 North American men and women whose previous heart attack put them at risk for a second heart attack, about half were told to switch to a “Mediterranean-type diet”—one rich in fish, vegetables, olive oil, and grains—while the other half were advised to eat a more traditional “Western” diet but to limit their fat intake. Those following the Mediterranean diet were significantly less likely than those in the other group to have a second heart attack. But the Mediterranean diet includes a fair amount of fat from fish and olive oil, so the research suggests that a diet may not have to be extremely low in fat in order to protect the heart.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowSee the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Unlock the full explanation
Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.
thanks, this one was pretty straightforward once I realized it was about strengthening the fat point.
Yeah same, the wording about fat not having to be super low made B pop out for me.
Wait, why is E wrong? It mentions cardiologists and the Mediterranean diet... I keep picking answers with experts in them lol
E is about drugs boosting the effect, which doesn't really support the idea that fat itself isn't the problem.
also E is just 'some cardiologists believe' which is weak, doesn't add evidence about the diet's fat.
is it just me or does A kind of go the opposite direction? like it supports low fat being good, not the Mediterranean point.
B makes sense since it explains why the fat in fish/olive oil could actually help. took me a sec to get past the 'fat is bad' mindset but good question.
right, the oils protecting against rhythm disruptions is the extra evidence we need.
What it tests
Whether you can identify the option that most bolsters an argument's conclusion.
Common trap
Choosing an option that is consistent with the argument but adds no new support, or that shifts the topic.