Although high cholesterol levels have

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection19% picked this

   It fails to consider the possibility that lipoprotein(a) raises

   Would is hurt the argument if lipoprotein(a) raises cholesterol levels? Would that give us a way to argue that, "there are dietary changes you can make that affect heart disease?" No, it wouldn't, since the author already established that dietary changes have no affect on lipoprotein(a) levels.

   19%
2. B

   Not True14% picked this

   It provides no evidence for a link between lipoprotein(a) and

   It does provide evidence: recently, they found higher than average lipoprotein(a) levels in people who had heart disease but didn't have any other underlying condition to which to attribute the heart disease.

   14%
3. C

   Correct60% picked this

   It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes

   Why this is right

   The first sentence says that "high cholesterol is associated with the development of heart disease". Associated with is the same as correlated with, which means that there's a statistical lumpiness that keeps putting high cholesterol and heart disease in the same room with each other. Correlations almost always have exceptions (statisticians measure the strength of the correlation based on what percentage of cases adhere to the correlation vs. vary from it). The second half of the first sentence explains that the correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease is not a perfect one. There are many examples of high cholesterol with no heart disease, and many examples of heart disease with no high cholesterol. Correlations are by no means proof of causality, but they are evidence there may be causality. If you saw that 85% of people with lung cancer were smokers, even though it's not 100% of smokers or 100% of lung cancer patients, you'd be wise to surmise that there might be some link between lung cancer and smoking. So this answer is pointing out the objection that, "Maybe dietary changes don't lower your lipoprotein(a), which may be a cause of heart disease, but they can lower your cholesterol levels, and high cholesterol may be a cause of a heart disease!" This is a subtle example of the famous flaw Internal Contradiction, in which the author says something early on in the paragraph that seems to undermine something they say later.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   60%
4. D

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   It fails to consider the possibility that poor diets cause some people to develop health problems

   Out of Scope: other than heart disease If the conclusion had merely said, "Hence, there is no reason for anyone to make dietary changes", then it would have been vulnerable to the objection of, "Hey, just cuz it does nothing for heart disease doesn't mean it doesn't do good when it comes to other health problems." But this conclusion explicitly narrowed its scope to "for the sake of preventing heart disease".

   5%
5. E

   Not Necessary2% picked this

   It offers no explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never

   Did the author need to offer an explanation for why some people with high cholesterol never get heart disease? No. She's saying that dietary changes aren't going to do anything to prevent heart disease, so she's presumably thinking that there isn't a causal connection between high cholesterol and heart disease. She would only be burdened by needing to explain these "exceptional cases" if she were trying to sell us on the idea that high cholesterol does cause heart disease.

   2%