LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 05

December 1997

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:04

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
PT101 S3 Q05
+LR
Necessary assumption +NA
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
1%
156
B
0%
C
1%
156
D
98%
168
E
1%
151
126
134
143
 +Easiest 146.901 +SubsectionMedium

Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plastic cutting boards, but bacteria can penetrate wooden cutting boards almost immediately, leaving the surface free of contamination. Therefore, wooden cutting boards, unlike plastic cutting boards, need not be washed in order to prevent their contaminating food that is cut on them; wiping them off to remove food debris is sufficient.

Summary
The argument concludes that wooden cutting boards only need to be wiped off in order to prevent bacterial contamination of food cut on them, not washed like plastic cutting boards. This is supported by the claim that bacteria can sink into wooden cutting boards very quickly, rather than lingering on the surface.

Notable Assumptions
The argument jumps straight from bacteria sinking into wooden cutting boards to the conclusion that there must be no need to wash those cutting boards to prevent contamination. This assumes that once food debris is wiped off, there’s no way for the bacteria that penetrated a wooden cutting board to recontaminate the surface.

A
Washing plastic cutting boards does not remove all bacteria from the surface.
Whether or not washing removes all the bacteria from plastic cutting boards is irrelevant—the argument is only concerned with what steps are necessary to prevent contamination for wooden cutting boards.
B
Prevention of bacterial contamination is the only respect in which wooden cutting boards are superior to plastic cutting boards.
The argument doesn’t involve any broad claims about whether wooden or plastic cutting boards are overall superior, so this is irrelevant.
C
Food that is not already contaminated with bacteria can be contaminated only by being cut on contaminated cutting boards.
The argument isn’t concerned with every possible way food can be contaminated, it’s only considering when wooden cutting boards can contaminate food. Other sources of contamination are irrelevant.
D
Bacteria that penetrate into wooden cutting boards do not reemerge on the surface after the cutting boards have been used.
Reemerging after use would be one way for bacteria that penetrated into a wooden cutting board to recontaminate the surface. If we negate this, then bacteria can reemerge, which would mean that wiping the surface clean would not suffice to prevent contamination.
E
Washing wooden cutting boards kills bacteria below the surface of the cutting boards.
What would happen if someone washed a wooden cutting board isn’t relevant to the argument, which claims that washing is not necessary to prevent contamination from wooden cutting boards.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply