Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 1 · Question 18

Incorrect. Why the people are deciding to eat at the steakhouse is out of scope of whether or not they're lowering their cholesterol intake.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that the people eating at these restaurants aren't following the advice of health officials, who made a blanket recommendation, so it's not assuming that those eating at such a restaurant don't need to decrease their cholesterol intake. If anything, it assumes the opposite.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), price is out of scope here—cheap or expensive, beef has cholesterol.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't draw a causal relationship between the decline in beef consumption and the downturn in the restaurant industry. In fact, by pointing out the success of steakhouses as beef consumption decreases, the argument is, if anything, saying they're not causally related.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Health officials — Eat less cholesterol, including red meat
Positive — A recent decline in overall beef consumption
Negative — Steakhouses are flourishing
Conclusion — Many people are not following the health officials's advice

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is that there are many people who aren't following the health officials's advice. That has two statements that refer back to earlier statements or are vague: Who are these people? What is the advice?

When a conclusion is vague or makes callbacks, see if you can make it more specific. Here, the people in question are clearly those who are eating at the steak houses. And the advice is to eat less cholesterol—containing foods. So we can rephrase the conclusion as:
People who are eating at steakhouses are not reducing their cholesterol consumption.

This makes it a lot easier to see the gap in the reasoning. Eating at a steakhouse is a single meal, whereas the recommendation is about the overall amount of cholesterol in the diet. That's a jump from a part of the diet to the diet as a whole—a classic Part vs. Whole flaw. Let's find an answer stating that the argument is ignoring that these people might be cutting out cholesterol from their diet overall while still enjoying the occasional filet at a nice restaurant.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the Part vs. Whole flaw in the stimulus, treating single meals as establishing something true about overall diets. If the people who are eating at steakhouses are cutting red meat out of their diet otherwise, they could be heeding the advice of health officials while still frequenting a restaurant selling red meat.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion refers back to an earlier concept that has more clarity in the premise, rephrase it to include that clarity. When the conclusion is about a generic group that is more clearly defined in the premises, rephrase the conclusion to include that group!

Many times, rephrasing the conclusion to bring in the related concepts in the premises will be enough to let you see the gap in the logic!