to the top

#14 - Consumer advocate: Tropical oils are high in saturated

jschutsky
LSAT Novice
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:04 am
Points: 2

Hi,

Would like to get an explanation for a point of issue question from prep test 4, 2/92, LR 2, # 14.
I selected choice A. could you explain why this is incorrect and choice E in correct.

Thank you.

Jeff
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 pm
Points: 3,142

Hi Jeff,

A quick question: are you in one of the PowerScore courses or do you have the LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible? That will help us with the explanation.

Thanks!
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore PodCast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
na02
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:40 pm
Points: 14

I originally chose C because I thought the point of issue was tropical oils vs. meat.
I'd taken the Nutritionist to say: Since the major sources of SF is in meat, it would be of "more benefit" to focus on reducing meat (which I sense doesn't pass the Fact Test since it doesn't mention in the stimulus).
But how would one get to the answer E? I don't see where I would get "public-health strategy" from the Nutritionist.
(p.s. I've just started studying with the Bibles and am planning to take the LSAT in October)

Many thanks!
Brook Miscoski
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:38 am
Points: 366

NAO2,

The way to keep yourself on track is to remember that with a point at issue question the correct choice must describe both of the arguments. Since the consumer advocate never mentioned meat, (C) is wrong. On the other hand, the consumer advocate clearly believes that a strategy focused on tropical oils is a good choice, while the nutritionist clearly believes that strategy is a bad choice. That's answer choice (E).

In general, never pick a choice that introduces an explicitly non-considered topic (meat) because another choice has some abstract wording you're not sure about. In this case, the nutritionist is responding to the consumer advocate's claim about "intensive publicity," and both of them are talking about what the public does and what is good for the people in general. "Public health strategy" is what they are discussing.