Question

The incidence in Japan of most types of cancer is remarkably low compared to that in North America, especially considering that Japan has a modern life- style, industrial pollution included. The cancer rates, however, for Japanese people who immigrate to North America and adopt the diet of North Americans approximate the higher cancer rates prevalent in North America. If the statements above are true, they provide the most support for which one of the following? (A) The greater the level of industrial pollution in a country, the higher that country's cancer rate will tend to be. (B) The stress of life in North America is greater than that of life in Japan and predisposes to cancer. (C) The staple foods of the Japanese diet contain elements that cure cancer. (D) The relatively low rate of cancer among people in Japan does not result from a high frequency of a protective genetic trait among Japanese people. (E) The higher cancer rates of Japanese immigrants to North America are caused by fats in the North American diet.

Short answer

Option (D) is most supported by the statements.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Situation

The exercise presents a scenario comparing cancer rates between Japan and North America. It notes that cancer rates are low in Japan, despite factors like industrial pollution, but increase for Japanese immigrants in North America adopting a local diet.

Analyze the Implications

The key point here is that environmental factors, specifically diet, appear to influence cancer rates. The fact that Japanese people moving to North America tend to have higher cancer rates similar to locals despite their heritage suggests diet plays a significant role.

Determine the Best Supported Conclusion

Now, evaluate the given options to see which aligns best with the evidence in the text. Option (D) suggests that the lower cancer rates in Japan are not due to genetic traits, implicating external factors like diet as more influential.

Compare All Options

Both diets and pollution are environmental factors. Options (A) and (E) address pollution and specific diet components but aren't as directly supported by the text as (D). Options (B) and (C) introduce new assumptions not evident in the text.

Select the Most Supported Statement

The scenario and provided facts most strongly back option (D), as it directly argues against the genetic explanation and supports diet or environmental factors as significant influences on cancer rates.

Key concepts

Cancer Rates Comparison

Japan's cancer rates are notably lower than those in North America, despite Japan's industrial pollution. This disparity might seem surprising given that both nations experience modern lifestyles with varying environmental pressures, yet the cancer rates remain distinct. A crucial observation emerges when considering Japanese immigrants in North America. When they adopt the North American diet, their cancer rates rise to match those of the locals.
This pattern demonstrates that the mere lifestyle similarities do not fully explain cancer prevalence differences. Instead, it invites us to focus on elements less apparent at first glance.

• Japan maintains lower cancer rates despite industrial pollution.
• Immigration to North America and dietary changes increase cancer rates for Japanese people.
• The role of diet as a significant environmental factor becomes a point of interest.

Through this comparison, one can question the influences of environmental versus hereditary factors across different cultural contexts.

Diet and Cancer Correlation

The idea that a significant correlation exists between diet and cancer rates emerges from the detailed examination of Japanese immigrants' experiences. As these individuals transition away from their traditional diets to those common in North America, a subsequent rise in cancer rates occurs, aligning them with new environmental norms.
Notably, this detail puts diet under the spotlight. Is it the fats prevalent in the North American diet responsible for this trend? The exercise suggests that dietary changes might indeed influence cancer incidence.

• The traditional Japanese diet may offer some protective elements not present in the North American diet.
• The adoption of a foreign diet correlates with increased cancer rates.
• This difference underscores the potential impact diet can have on health outcomes.

Through the lens of this correlation, diet emerges as more than just a lifestyle choice—it becomes an influential factor in health, potentially outweighing other environmental conditions like pollution.

Logical Reasoning Analysis

Logical reasoning is crucial in resolving which factors most directly affect cancer rates. Evaluating the scenario involves considering multiple hypotheses and identifying the most plausible explanation supported by the evidence.
When analyzing the provided statements, the argument leans towards dismissing genetic factors, highlighting external influences like diet as more impactful. This kind of reasoning helps us focus on the role of environmental conditions, beyond just pollution or stress, in health outcomes.

• Genetic explanations for low cancer rates in Japan are less supported.
• Logical analysis helps isolate diet as a key environmental factor.
• Reasoning should align with evidence, discounting unsupported assumptions.

Thus, logical reasoning aids in constructing a supported argument, emphasizing the interplay of various environmental factors, with diet emerging as a noteworthy influencer on cancer rates.