PrepTest 135

[lcid:3636] Prep Test 135 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

The proportion of fat Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Those who read food labels also eat less fat, so reading the food labels makes one healthier.

Answer Anticipation

The conclusion here uses causal language (“promotes”), so we should immediately check to see if it’s based on a correlation. And it is! Those who read nutrition labels also eat a smaller proportion of fat.
Checking that should highlight two things. First, the argument shifts from a correlation to causation. Second, there’s also a term shift - a diet with a lower proportion of fat, and healthful dietary behavior. That second flaw could just as easily show up in a correct answer, so we should be on the lookout for either!

Answer choices

  1. A
    illicitly infers a cause Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Right off the bat, we get our correlation/causation flaw. The argument jumps from a premise about one group of people having two behaviors, and one of those behaviors causing the other (maybe a general desire to be healthy causes both). That’s a flawed leap, so this answer is correct.
  2. B
    relies on a sample Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    There’s no sample specified, so there’s no way to determine that it’s unrepresentative. And the group includes everyone - those who do and don’t read nutrition labels.
  3. C
    confuses a condition that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    There’s no conditional language, so there’s no illegal reversal.
  4. D
    takes for granted that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The phenomenon would have to be the correlation between reading nutrition labels and eating a smaller proportion of fat, but there’s no indication that the argument assumes there are only two explanations for that. In fact, it only raises one.
  5. E
    draws a conclusion about Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    There’s never a discussion of motive - just action and analysis of that action.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion