Nutritional Biologists have Long Argued that Sugar Should be Classified as a Toxin.

Sayantani Barman logo

bySayantani Barman Experta en el extranjero

Reading passage question

Nutritional biologists have long argued that sugar should be classified as a toxin. Indeed, excessive consumption of simple carbohydrates, especially fructose, has been definitively linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. However, to classify sugar as a “toxin” would be a misnomer. Almost any otherwise benign nutritional substance can be toxic if ingested in quantities sufficiently large to cause harm. Moreover, our obsession with sugar is itself harmful, as it detracts from focusing on an equally important part of any balanceddiet: sodium.

Just like sugar, excessive consumption of sodium represents a significant health risk, especially for those suffering from hypertension. Everyone needs some sodium in his or her diet to replace routine losses. But while an adequate and safe intake of sodium for healthy adults is 1,100 to 3,300 milligrams a day, most processed foods exceed the upper limit of that range at least two-fold. It is likely that excessive sodium intake plays a role in the etiology of hypertension, additionally elevating the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and renal disease. Furthermore, since the salt used in the preparation of processed foods is generally refined, its consumption fails to satisfy the organism’s need for other salts and minerals, which induces further craving. The excessive consumption of sodium can therefore enhance caloric overconsumption, and—just like dietary fructose—contribute to weight gain.

Unfortunately, by limiting the intake of sugar, many of today’s “fad diets” inadvertently increase the consumption of sodium. This is because diets low in sugar are often tasteless, and salt increases their palatability. Of course, substituting one harmful additive for an equally harmful one is nothing new: manufacturers were quick to promote “low-fat” foods in the 1980’s when fat was viewed as the enemy, but increased the sugar content to keep consumers happy. Good nutrition, just like good health, is best viewed holistically. A well-balanced diet does not focus on any single nutritional additive in isolation. Instead, it uses natural foods to satisfy the body’s need for macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat) while also taking into account the role of vitamins, minerals and fiber.

“Nutritional biologists have long argued that sugar should be classified as a toxin.”- is a GMAT reading comprehension passage with answers. Candidates need a strong knowledge of English GMAT reading comprehension.

This GMAT Reading Comprehension consists of 7 comprehension questions. The GMAT Reading Comprehension questions are designed for the purpose of testing candidates’ abilities in understanding, analysing, and applying information or concepts. Candidates can actively prepare with the help of GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.

Questions and Solutions

  1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) argue that excessive consumption of sodium is more harmful than is excessive consumption of sugar.
(B) explain why low-carb diets may induce an undesirable dietary habit.
(C) call attention to the undesirable effects of sodium intake.
(D) reject the view that sugar should be classified as a toxin.
(E) compare and contrast the effects of two harmful nutritional substances.

Answer: B
Explanation: This option is correct because the passage essentially talks about how our obsession with sugar is harmful. The second paragraph explains why it is so by describing that it promotes the increased consumption of sodium, which is an undesirable dietary habit. Option B is correct.

  1. The author mentions the fact that diets low in carbohydrates are often tasteless (Highlighted) primarily in order to

(A) distinguish low-carbohydrate diets from low-fat diets
(B) indicate a way in which low-carbohydrate diets promote unhealthy eating habits
(C) explain why low-carbohydrate diets often fail to achieve their primary objectives
(D) illustrate a potential downside unique to low-carbohydrate diets
(E) suggest why an alternative dietary regimen is superior to low-carbohydrate diets

Answer: B
Explanation: This option is correct. According to the passage, low-carb diets are tasteless, that is the reason why we try to make them tastier by consuming more salt. In this process we substitute one harmful additive for another. So, Option B is correct.

  1. Based on the passage, the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about sodium intake?

(A) It is a necessary component of any diet.
(B) It interferes with the body’s ability to absorb nutrients.
(C) It is just as toxic as sugar.
(D) It represents a significant health risk.
(E) In large amounts, it invariably exacerbates hypertension.

Answer: A
Explanation: This option is correct because the passage clearly states that, “everyone needs some sodium in his or her diet”. It proves that sodium intake is a necessary component of any diet. Option A states the same notion. So, Option A is correct.

  1. The author would be most likely to regard low-carbohydrate diets as

(A) somewhat beneficial, because added sugar has no nutritional value.
(B) clearly healthful, because they limit the consumption of a potentially toxic substance.
(C) overly restrictive of an important macronutrient.
(D) inconsistent with the tenets of a well-balanced diet.
(E) harmful, because they require an increased consumption of sodium.

Answer: D
Explanation: This option is correct. The third paragraph presents a contrast of well balanced diets to those diets that focus on a single nutritional additive in isolation. We know that the low-carb diet is an example of the latter trend. It is safe for us to conclude that the author would treat them as inconsistent with all the tenets of a well-balanced diet. Option D is correct.

  1. Which one of the following best describes the function of the second paragraph of the passage?

(A) It outlines the structure of the author’s central argument.
(B) It provides the rationale for correcting a misconception described in the first paragraph.
(C) It explains why an outlook suggested in the first paragraph is potentially harmful.
(D) It presents research that undermines the argument presented in the first paragraph.
(E) It supports a course of action recommended in the first paragraph.

Answer: C
Explanation: This option is correct because the first paragraph basically talks about people’s modern day obsession with cutting sugar at the expense of sodium. By explaining the deleterious and adverse effects of excessive sodium intake in detail, the second paragraph explains why this outlook is harmful. Option C is correct.

  1. Which one of the following statements would most appropriately continue the discussion at the end of the passage?

(A) Clearly, food cannot be judged one component at a time.
(B) Thus, no single dietary regimen is likely to be completely harmless.
(C) Nor surprisingly, our evolving views on nutrition are reflected in the dietary choices we make.
(D) Therefore, manufacturers must strive for greater consistency in their dietary recommendations.
(E) Otherwise, if one waits long enough, almost any food will be reported as healthful.

Answer: A
Explanation: This option is correct. In the last paragraph, we see an explanation of the practice of substituting one harmful additive for an equally harmful one. The author argues for a more holistic approach. This means that she would be critical and cautious of any dietary approach that judges food one component at a time. Option A is correct.

Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Samples

Fees Structure

CategoryState
General15556

In case of any inaccuracy, Notify Us! 

Comments


No Comments To Show