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: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#22841
Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (D)

Here the author presents some interesting information regarding salted versus unsalted foods, and how they react to microwave cooking. While unsalted foods get hot enough inside to kill the bacteria that can cause food poisoning, salted foods do not, maybe because salt blocks the microwaves.

As is common with a stimulus that precedes a Must Be True question, this one presents a simple fact set, which will only confirm the accuracy of one answer choice.

Answer choice (A): The author makes no comparison about this likelihood on the inside versus the outside of food, so this answer choice is unsupported and incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Based on the limited information provided in the stimulus, there is no way to assess whether there would be such a reduction, nor if it would be significant.

Answer choice (C): The danger of salt as referenced by this author comes into play before the microwave is used; the author tells us nothing about the ramifications of adding salt to food that has already been microwaved.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, as it can be confirmed by the information provided in the stimulus. Since unsalted foods appear to get more bacterial protection from microwaves, the danger can be lessened if salt is not used.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice makes the bold claim that the primary cause of microwave food poisoning is salt use. This claim is completely unsupported by the stimulus, so this answer choice is incorrect.
User avatar
 cd1010
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Jul 12, 2022
|
#105414
Hello,

I have a question about reading the stimulus. After I read this, I thought that the argument had a causal element. The phrase, "Scientists theorize that.." to me was a kind of indicator that the scientists were hypothesizing about what was happening.

Cause: Salt blocks microwaves from heating the interior.
Effect: Interior of food does not reach temps high enough to kill bacteria that cause food poisoning.

So, my prephrase ended up revolving around this, but then when I went to the question, I had to reconfigure the stimulus in my head.

I was wondering what your advice is regarding this? Is this a flag about how I'm engaging with the stimulus?

Thanks!
User avatar
 Hanin Abu Amara
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Mar 29, 2023
|
#105420
Hi cd1010,

So just because we have a hypothesis or a theory, doesn't mean that we have established a casual relationship. In this instance, in the end the science are considering the possibility that yes, the salt caused the interior to not reach the appropriate temperature.

So if we think about which conclusion is most supported, D makes sense because it is saying No cause --> No effect.

No salt ---> no issues in heating up ---> no food poisoning .

Hope that helps

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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