LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8927
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#35158
Complete Question Explanation

WeakenX. The correct answer choice is (B)

Your task in this Weaken—Except question is to select the answer choice that does not weaken the
consumer advocate’s argument, meaning it either has no effect on the argument or strengthens it. The
argument, reordered for clarity, proceeds:

..... Premise: ..... in some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays to
..... ..... ..... ..... extend shelf life

..... Premise: ..... irradiated foods are exposed to radiated substances

..... Premise: ..... irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving harmful
..... ..... ..... ..... chemical residues

..... Premise: ..... irradiation spawns unique radiolytic products that can cause serious health
..... ..... ..... ..... problems, including cancer

..... Conclusion: ..... thus, there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods

Your prephrase is that the correct answer will either strengthen or have no effect on the conclusion
that there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Each of the incorrect choices will weaken the
conclusion, and it is most likely that at least one of the choices will connect directly to each of the
premises.

Answer choice (A): This information attacks the conclusion by suggesting that the benefit of
irradiation may outweigh the danger, which seldom actually occurs.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This choice has no effect on the conclusion,
because the unrelated causes of cancer and other serious health problems are irrelevant to the
argument.

Answer choice (C): As with choice (A), this information suggests the benefits of irradiation
outweigh the risks.

Answer choice (D): This choice suggests that the level of harmful chemicals found in irradiated
foods is negligible, and that by this metric irradiated foods may be safer to eat than most kinds of
foods.

Answer choice (E): This choice undermines the conclusion by showing that while the radiolytic
products of irradiation have the potential to cause cancer, there is no evidence that they in fact cause
cancer.
 c-erv
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Oct 14, 2016
|
#30852
Hello, I am having a hard time seeing why answer choice B doesn't weaken the argument.

B is letting us know that radioactive substances and gamma rays are not solely responsible for cancer and other serious health problems, thus wouldn't it weaken the conclusion that "there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods"? since it's tackling on a negative aspect of irradiated foods?

Thanks
 David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2013
|
#30855
c-erv wrote:Hello, I am having a hard time seeing why answer choice B doesn't weaken the argument.

B is letting us know that radioactive substances and gamma rays are not solely responsible for cancer and other serious health problems, thus wouldn't it weaken the conclusion that "there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods"? since it's tackling on a negative aspect of irradiated foods?

Thanks

Hello c-erv,

Not necessarily, since just because radioactives and gammas aren't solely responsible for cancer etc., still, they are responsible. Falling down a manhole isn't the only cause of accidental injury, but people should still avoid falling down manholes!

Hope this helps,
David
 Oneshot06
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Feb 07, 2018
|
#44111
Hi, I just want to double-check my reasoning:

All the wrong answers will hurt the argument. Answer choice B.) doesn't hurt the argument because cancer and other health problems have other causes, not just from irradiated foods, so it doesn't hurt the argument. It doesn't really do anything to the argument so it's the correct answer?

Thx!
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#44148
You got it, OneShot! The question stem for an EXCEPT question describes the four wrong answers, so a Weaken-EXCEPT questions has four wrong answers that weaken the argument and a correct answer that does not weaken it. A "Could Be True-EXCEPT" has four wrong answers that Could Be True and one correct answer that Cannot Be True, and so on.

Nicely done!
User avatar
 teddykim100
  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: Jan 10, 2022
|
#105477
Hello,

would you classify this type of reasoning as causation? The premises all had causal indicators in them (cause, can reduce, that produce).

However, since the evidence all had causal indicators, it was hard to see a correlation/causation error being committed, since there was no correlation, just direct causation.

If that is the case, how would we weaken a causal argument, when causality is already established?
User avatar
 Hanin Abu Amara
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Mar 29, 2023
|
#105488
While there are technically words that are causal. The over all argument isn’t causal. We always want to look to the overall context of the indicators. Here the causal words are in the context of three reasons as to why irritated food is bad.

Your best approach to weaken this question is to show that those reason aren’t that bad.

Hope that answers your question

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.