PrepTest 132

Incorrect. This answer highlights a relevant difference between beta-carotene in the diet and beta-carotene supplements. If the body is processing it less efficiently in these supplements, then that could explain why it doesn't work in supplement form.

Incorrect. The second study was done for those who took the beta-carotene supplements for only 12 years. If it takes longer than that to work, then it's no wonder that there were no effects seen from it in that study.

Incorrect. If foods carry other nutrients that help absorb beta-carotene better, then there's more beta-carotene in their systems than in those who take the supplements, thus potentially explaining the discrepancy.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Bizarro Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Study 1 – Those whose diet included a lot of beta-carotene were much less likely to die from cancer or heart disease
Study 2 – Those who took beta-carotene supplements saw no health impact

Answer Anticipation:
This argument relates the findings of two key studies that seem to suggest opposite conclusions, and we're tasked with explaining how those conclusions don't contradict each other. In other words, we need to explain how both can be true.

Paradox questions frequently deal with comparisons, and so we should compare these two studies.

First off, they have different samples. We're not talking about the size—1,500 is smaller than 20,000, but both are pretty large. However, we don't know where these samples came from. If they were different in some key way, that could explain the different response to beta-carotene.

Second, they were done over a different timeline. The first study was over twice as long a period as the second. Anything highlighting a longer timeline for beta-carotene to work could explain the discrepancy.

Third, the first study was done on people who had a diet high in beta-carotene, whereas the second study was done with people who took a supplement. If there's a key difference between beta-carotene in the diet and beta-carotene supplements, that could also explain the discrepancy.

Since this is a Bizarro Paradox question, there are going to be 4 answers that resolve the paradox, so we need to be flexible and open to answers we didn't anticipate, but they should all highlight some difference between the two studies that explain the differing impact of beta-carotene.

Answer Explanation:
By setting up a control group, this answer might make the outcome of the study more likely to be correct, but it doesn't explain why there were different outcomes from consuming beta-carotene in the two studies.

Key Takeaway:
Paradox questions are frequently about comparisons. When there's an unexpected difference in the outcomes of two things, there's a good chance the correct answer will highlight an unstated difference that explains that outcome.

Incorrect. This answer highlights an interesting possibility that explains the discrepancy. In the first group, the cancer/heart disease rate was said to be lower in the first group. If that group had fewer smokers, then that could serve as the explanation for that lower rate, not the beta-carotene. In bringing up an alternative explanation for the results of the first study, the argument suggests that beta-carotene wasn't the real cause in there, thus bringing the results more in line with the second study where beta-carotene didn't have an impact on heart disease or cancer.