LSAT 134 – Section 1 – Question 24

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 24

October 2011

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

Target time: 1:24

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 Q24	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR Rule-Application +RuleApp Kick It Up +KIU	A 9% 159 B 2% 156 C 9% 159 D 9% 159 E 71% 167	150 157 165	+Harder	147.067 +SubsectionMedium

Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most consumers of that product would be upset to discover in it, then the food should be labeled as containing those ingredients.

Application: Crackly Crisps need not be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients, since most consumers of Crackly Crisps would not care if they discovered that fact.

Summarize Argument

The argument concludes that Crackly Crisps do not need to be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients. This is based on a principle: food products should be labeled as containing ingredients that would upset most consumers of that product. We also know that genetically engineered ingredients would upset most consumers of Crackly Crisps.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument is flawed because it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. According to the principle, an ingredient upsetting consumers of a product is a sufficient condition to label the product as containing that ingredient. However, the application treats upsetting consumers as a necessary condition.
The genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may not upset the consumers, but that doesn’t guarantee that they need not be labeled.

fails to address the possibility that consumers of a specific food may not be representative of consumers of food in general

Only the consumers of a specific food product are relevant for the principle given in the argument. The argument just doesn’t make any claims about consumers of food in general, only the consumers of Crackly Crisps.

fails to address the possibility that the genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may have been proven safe for human consumption

It’s irrelevant to the argument whether a product’s ingredients are safe for human consumption, only whether most consumers of the product would be upset to learn that those ingredients are included in the product.

implicitly makes use of a value judgment that is incompatible with the principle being applied

The argument doesn’t make any value judgments about genetically engineered ingredients, product labeling, or anything else relevant.

takes for granted that if most consumers of a product would buy it even if they knew several of the ingredients in it, then they would buy the product even if they knew all the ingredients in it

The argument doesn’t make this claim. It also never implies that this is the case.

confuses a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions

The argument treats a sufficient condition—an ingredient upsetting most consumers of a product—as if it were a necessary condition for labeling a product as containing that ingredient. The absence of a sufficient condition doesn’t guarantee that the product need not be labeled.

LSAT 134 – Section 1 – Question 24

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 24

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 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel