LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 03

June 2001

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

Target time: 0:56

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
PT110 S2 Q03	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Eliminating Options +ElimOpt	A 1% 156 B 2% 157 C 2% 160 D 0% 160 E 96% 166	122 132 143	+Easiest	145.606 +SubsectionMedium

Restaurant manager: In response to requests from our patrons for vegetarian main dishes, we recently introduced three: an eggplant and zucchini casserole with tomatoes, brown rice with mushrooms, and potatoes baked with cheese. The first two are frequently ordered, but no one orders the potato dish, although it costs less than the other two. Clearly, then, our patrons prefer not to eat potatoes.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The restaurant manager concludes that his restaurant’s patrons prefer not to eat potatoes because after adding a dish of potatoes baked with cheese to the restaurant’s menu, nobody ordered the dish, even though it’s cheaper than the restaurant’s other vegetarian-friendly main dishes.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The restaurant manager reasons that because nobody has been ordering the dish of potatoes baked with cheese, the restaurant’s patrons must not like to eat potatoes. However, an error of reasoning in the argument is that the manager draws a conclusion that’s too specific without adequate evidence.
While the patrons may not be ordering the potato dish because they dislike potatoes, it could also be for other reasons. They may not be ordering the dish because they dislike the cheese in the dish, the name of the dish, or any other number of reasons.

concluding that two things that occur at the same time have a common cause

The restaurant manager doesn’t discuss two things having a common cause. He just makes the case for why people aren’t ordering the potato dish.

drawing a conclusion that is inconsistent with one premise of the argument

The restaurant manager’s conclusion is that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes, and his premises are that nobody is ordering the potato dish even though patrons are ordering other vegetarian dishes that are more expensive. The premises doesn’t undermine the conclusion.

ignoring possible differences between what people say they want and what they actually choose

The restaurant manager doesn’t discuss what people say they want. He only discusses how patrons aren’t ordering the potato dish but are ordering the other vegetarian dishes.

attempting to prove a claim on the basis of evidence that a number of people hold that claim to be true

The restaurant manager doesn’t say his claim that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes is proven by the number of people who hold that claim to be true. He says the claim that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes is proven by nobody ever ordering the potato dish.

treating one of several plausible explanations of a phenomenon as the only possible explanation

This is the error the restaurant manager commits. Because people aren’t ordering the potato dish, the restaurant manager jumps to the explanation that the patrons don’t like potatoes. However, people not ordering the potato dish could have several other possible explanations.

LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 03

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 110 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel