Logical reasoning — Epidemiology and diet patterns: Japanese cancer incidence changes after immigration to Hawaii and diet shifts; determine which conclusion about adopting Hawaii’s diet or relative severity logically follows

Given data

• Statement: In Japan, stomach cancer is high and bowel cancer low; among Japanese who immigrate to Hawaii, in the next generation bowel cancer rises and stomach cancer falls. These patterns relate to nutrition because diets differ between Japan and Hawaii.
• Conclusions to test:
  • I: Japan should propagate Hawaii’s diet.
  • II: Bowel cancer is less severe than stomach cancer.

Concept/Approach

The statement reports correlations and a suspected explanatory factor (diet). It does not evaluate severity, nor prescribe a national dietary policy that could trade one disease pattern for another without weighing risks.

Step-by-Step reasoning
1) I does not follow: adopting Hawaii’s diet may reduce stomach cancer but is associated with higher bowel cancer among descendants. No net-benefit claim or policy recommendation is given.2) II does not follow: the text provides no information comparing the medical severity of these cancers.

Verification/Alternative

Even if diet influences incidence, appropriate policy would require risk–benefit analysis, which the statement does not provide. Thus, neither conclusion is compelled.

Common pitfalls

• Equating correlation with policy prescription.
• Assuming medical severity from incidence alone.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II follows.