PrepTest 149
[lcid:3694] Prep Test 149 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Advertisement: Most nutritionists recommend
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: C
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Weaken Questions
Answer choices
-
AEating more than the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. There's no indication that the ad is recommending eating tilapia more frequently than recommended. -
BTilapia are invasive species Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. This answer might explain why an expanding tilapia population is problematic for the environment or for people who like other types of fish, but it doesn't undermine the conclusion that tilapia are a good option for people who want the benefits of fish without the taste. -
CTilapia fillets contain little Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Weaken
Stimulus Summary:
Nutritionists Ð Eat fish twice a week
Ad Ð Tilapia doesn't have a fishy taste, so they're a good option if you want the benefits of fish without the taste.
Answer Anticipation:
This argument takes a general recommendation to eat more fish and then applies it to a specific recommendation for a specific group. If someone who hates the taste of fish wants to eat more of it to follow the recommendation of nutritionists, they should eat a fish that doesn't taste like fish—tilapia.
How would we weaken this argument? Well, the argument establishes that tilapia lacks the strong, fishy taste that many people dislike, so we can't undermine that part of it. However, it doesn't establish anything about the nutritional profile of tilapia. While the recommendation is about fish in general, it's possible that tilapia don't have whatever drives that recommendation—potentially also resulting in the lack of the strong, fishy taste.
Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a relevant difference between other fish and tilapia—the latter lack the nutritional elements that make fish a recommendation. That undercuts the argument that they are a good option for people who want to see the benefits of eating fish.
Key Takeaway:
Specific to answer choice (B), be careful with being precise with your understanding of the conclusion! It'd be easy to paraphrase this conclusion as, "Tilapia are good," in which case (B) would suggest a downside to tilapia. Especially when the conclusion mentions a specific group (here, those who want the benefits of fish without the taste), make sure the correct answer addresses that group. -
DMost people who do Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. If anything, this suggests that these people are in want of a solution to get the benefits of fish without the taste. -
EPeople who rarely or Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. If anything, this aligns with the argument.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.