Re: A team of Swedish scientists recently concluded a fifteen year study
[#permalink]
17 Jul 2021, 22:48
In this question, I would consider the second boldface because it is clearly a fact. On the basis of this interpretation, it is easy to eliminate options. Only I will have to see whether the options states the ROLE of second boldface accurately.
A. the second is one part of the information uncovered in the study. Eliminate
B. the second is one element of a logical argument in support of the scientists’ claim. Keep
C. the second is the result of that quandary. Any result would be claim or conclusion, not fact. Eliminate
D. the second is a piece of evidence against the argument. Argument is "the Swedish scientists attribute the lower rate of kidney cancer to increased intake of omega 3 fatty acids". I don't think the fact contradicts this argument because fact is about intake lacking omega 3. Eliminate
E. the second is a finding used to challenge that explanation. Well, by now you would know this can't be true. Eliminate.
Therefore, the correct answer is B.