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
|
#24964
Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer is (C)

This stimulus describes some changes in common wisdom about the nutritional value of two different foods. In both cases, the food initially was determined to be unhealthy. Later, it turned out that the foods had certain health benefits, at least according to one report. It is important to note that the author does not challenge the original health concerns about chocolate and olive oil, but only provides evidence of possible benefits while ignoring the risks. From the two examples given, the author concludes that almost any food will be reported to be healthful.

The author’s conclusion that if you wait long enough, pretty much any food will be reported to be healthful is highly questionable. The conclusion is based on only two examples, and those examples each were only based on a single study. The information provided is too limited to support such a broad, strong conclusion.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice focuses on the first example, the health value of chocolate. The answer choice questions the use of the example because the study was paid for by an interested party—the confectioner’s trade association. However, the olive oil example was not paid for by a biased group. This answer choice only addresses a portion of the flaw in this argument.

Answer choice (B): The argument in the stimulus moves from specific examples (chocolate and olive oil) to a general rule regarding all food. Our conclusion is a general rule. This answer choice describes the opposite argument, one where the conclusion would be a specific example, and the premise would be a general rule. Since this answer choice did not correctly describe the structure of the argument, it is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As described above, the flaw in the argument is that the author attempts to draw too broad of a conclusion. Based solely on two instances, the author attempts to draw a conclusion about nearly all foods. He or she does not claim that the example foods are representative of all other foods. Therefore, since the author’s conclusion is too broad to be supported by the examples in the stimulus, this is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D): In this stimulus, the author does not assume that all results of nutritional studies will eventually be reported, but rather, that almost all foods will eventually be studied at deemed to be healthy. This answer choice does not address the key flaw of the argument, that the author bases his conclusion on a very limited sample set.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect as the author does not care if foods are reported to be unhealthy, so long as they are reported to be healthy at least once. Even in the cases of chocolate and olive oil, reports have recorded possible health risks to consuming the food. The author acknowledges the negative reports in the stimulus. His conclusion is that, despite the existence of negative reports, almost all foods will have at least one report showing nutritional value.
 akanshalsat
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: Dec 20, 2017
|
#49372
Hello!

I completely get this question and why C is correct, in fact I chose C myself

However, I keep rereading D and its confusing me now... the conclusion says that if you wait long enough almost any food will be reported to be healthful - isnt that the same is saying any food will be reported in general? since to be reported healthful you need to be *reported* and its saying that almost any food WILL BE reported? so doesn't that make sense with D?

Sorry, i'm really confused now
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#49925
I can help, akanshalsat! First, compare the strength of the language in the stimulus to that in answer D. The stimulus says that almost any food will be reported to be healthful, while answer D says ALL results will be reported. That is enough to make D a loser. But wait, there's more!

The stimulus says that almost any food will be reported to be healthful, but that doesn't mean that all research results will be reported. It could be that just some of the results are reported, and yet they still eventually report the foods to be healthful. So, researchers might do 10 studies of macaroni and cheese and report none of the specific results of those studies, and then an 11th study is done that finds that mac and cheese helps reverse receding hairlines (I wish!), and that healthful result gets reported. Not that ALL results are reported, but that ALMOST ALL foods will be reported to have healthful effects, even if only a portion of the results are released.

Good job selecting the correct answer!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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