Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 1 · Question 6

Incorrect. The objective is to inform consumers of the artificial substances used in milk production, and the argument doesn't propose an alternative means of doing so.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Some lawmakers want to label milk with artificial substances used in its production, but there are way too many for that to be practical, so their proposal should be rejected.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument points out that a given proposal would lead to a ridiculous situation—one where too many things would need to be listed on a carton of milk. This method of rebutting a proposal or argument—showing that it would lead to ridiculous outcomes—is a common method of reasoning on the LSAT, so we should look for that answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the common method of reasoning used by the argument—showing that a proposal or argument would lead to an absurd outcome or conclusion. Here, the argument highlights that the proposal would require a disclosure list that's ridiculously long ("just imagine").

Key Takeaway:
Pointing out that an argument made by an opposing viewpoint would lead to ridiculous, absurd, or undesirable outcomes is a common method of reasoning on the LSAT. If you want to get fancy, the Latin is reductio ad absurdum. But even if you can't remember (or pronounce!) the Latin, just note that it occurs when someone has their own logic used against them.

Incorrect. There's no alternative to requiring disclosure mentioned in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The considerations raised aren't analogous situations—they're more examples of the disclosures that would be required by the proposal.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the motives or any accusations of bias in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.