LSAT 134 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 07

October 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:50

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
PT134 S1 Q07
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Sampling +Smpl
A
2%
160
B
2%
156
C
96%
164
D
0%
155
E
1%
153
120
128
140
 +Easiest 147.067 +SubsectionMedium

Recently, a report commissioned by a confectioners trade association noted that chocolate, formerly considered a health scourge, is an effective antioxidant and so has health benefits. Another earlier claim was that oily foods clog arteries, leading to heart disease, yet reports now state that olive oil has a positive influence on the circulatory system. From these examples, it is clear that if you wait long enough, almost any food will be reported to be healthful.

Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that over time, almost any food will eventually be reported to be healthful. Why? Because both chocolate and olive oil have been considered unhealthy in the past, but were more recently reported to have health benefits.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because it makes an overly broad generalization from limited evidence. Just two examples of foods eventually reported to be healthful—chocolate and olive oil—isn’t enough to show that almost any food will eventually be reported to be healthful.

A
relies on the truth of a claim by a source that is likely to be biased
The argument doesn’t rely on any sources that are likely to be biased. Even if the reports were biased, that wouldn’t impact the argument’s conclusion, which is about what will likely be reported.
B
applies a general rule to specific cases to which it does not pertain
The argument doesn’t apply a general rule to a specific case. Rather, it draws a general rule about almost all food based on the specific examples of chocolate and olive oil.
C
bases an overly broad generalization on just a few instances
The argument concludes that almost every food will eventually be reported to be healthful based only on the examples of chocolate and olive oil. This is an overly broad generalization about all food based on just two instances.
D
takes for granted that all results of nutritional research are eventually reported
The argument never claims or assumes that all nutritional research results are eventually reported. The claim is just that, for almost any food, there will eventually be some report that the food is healthful.
E
fails to consider that there are many foods that are reported to be unhealthful
The argument doesn’t claim that there are not many foods that are reported to be unhealthful, only that most foods will eventually be reported to be healthful.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply