LSAT 118 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 118 - Section 1 - Question 07

December 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:59

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT118 S1 Q07
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
0%
152
B
85%
165
C
1%
155
D
14%
161
E
0%
154
120
137
153
 +Easier 148.411 +SubsectionMedium

An artificial hormone has recently been developed that increases milk production in cows. Its development has prompted some lawmakers to propose that milk labels should be required to provide information to consumers about what artificial substances were used in milk production. This proposal should not be implemented: just imagine trying to list every synthetic fertilizer used to grow the grass and grain the cows ate, or every fungicide used to keep the grain from spoiling!

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that lawmakers’ proposal to have milk labels list the artificial substances used in milk production should not be implemented. This is supported by some examples of unexpected information these labels would have to include, like fertilizer used to grow the cows’ feed. The examples imply that it would be too impractical to list all of the many artificial substances used in the many steps of milk production.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters the lawmakers’ proposal by pointing out unforeseen consequences of the proposal that would make implementing the proposal unreasonable.

A
proposing an alternative course of action for achieving the objectives of the proposal being argued against
The author doesn’t propose any alternatives, but is simply arguing against the feasibility of the entire proposal.
B
raising considerations in order to show that the proposal being argued against, if strictly implemented, would lead to absurd consequences
The author raises the consideration that a consequence of the proposal would be the absurd requirement to list substances like fertilizers and fungicides, which are technically part of the process of milk production.
C
using specific examples in order to show that an alternative to the proposal being argued against would better achieve the ends to which the original proposal was directed
The author doesn’t suggest any alternatives to the proposal being argued against, and only argues against the proposal on the grounds of the likely consequences of its implementation.
D
introducing a case analogous to the one under consideration to show that a general implementation of the proposal being argued against would be impossible
The author doesn’t make any analogies about a general case, and only argues that implementing the proposal would be highly unreasonable, not impossible.
E
questioning the motivation of those who made the proposal being argued against
The author doesn’t address the motivations of the lawmakers who made the proposal at any point, and only argues based on the likely consequences of the proposal itself.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply