PrepTest 151

Incorrect. First, the author doesn't reject their view—that's the same as saying it's wrong. Instead, the author says it's been drawn too hastily. Also, the author does offer some evidence that it could be wrong; she doesn't rely on there being insufficient evidence.

Incorrect. The author doesn't support the view.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
It's too soon to conclude that A's recipes are typical rich-person fare, since few other recipes exist and A might be like modern celebrity chefs who make atypical food.

Answer Anticipation:
It's important to first note that the argument concludes that an opposing view's conclusion has been drawn too hastily, not that it's wrong. That's an important distinction on the LSAT, so be sure to note whether an author who weighs in on an opposing point is saying that the other viewpoint is wrong or just hasn't yet established their viewpoint.

Here, the author undermines the opposing viewpoint by using modern examples to create doubt. The correct answer will reflect that method of reasoning.

Answer Explanation:
This answer perfectly describes the argument. It doesn't overshoot the conclusion (takes issue with can line up with either thinking the conclusion is wrong or invalid), and the rest of the answer describes the premises used to reach that conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When the author's conclusion is an opinion on the opposing viewpoint, it's important to note whether the conclusion is that the opposing point is wrong or just invalid/not yet proven.

Incorrect. The author uses the modern analogue to undercut a conclusion drawn by modern food historians. This answer gets the details wrong and flips it around.

Incorrect. The conclusion uses a similarity between ancient and modern times as a premise, not as a conclusion. The author also doesn't rely on the view of food historians; she undercuts it.