PrepTest 153

Incorrect. The conditional rule in the first sentence of the stimulus doesn't tell us anything about what consumers should do. We only know that companies should provide them with information.

Incorrect. That would be nice, but it wouldn't satisfy the necessary condition of the rule. Providing information is still required if it's difficult to make informed choices, even if they use less energy.

Incorrect. This is way too strong! Consumers might do nothing with the information on energy used in manufacturing products. (Kind of like when you can see how much sodium is in that yummy bag of hot chips, but you buy it anyway.)

Incorrect. Again, this is probably true in the real world, but it's not proven by this LSAT stimulus. We don't know anything about what consumers should do based on this rule. We only know what companies are obliged to do.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
A rule begins the stimulus: IF it's difficult to make informed decisions about products, THEN consumers should be provided with relevant information. Next we get an example of one application of this rule, namely nutrition facts printed on food packaging. Finally, another situation in which the rule could be applied is introduced: the difficulty of determining how much energy was used to produce a product. We're invited to complete the argument.

Strategy Overview:
In these "best completes" MBT questions, remember you're just being asked to provide the conclusion, same as a regular MBT. In this case, we're applying a rule to a given set of facts, a very common task in LR.

Answer Anticipation:
This is an argument made by comparison, so we should apply the rule in a way that is similar to the way it was applied in the example. (In other words, we wouldn't expect that the correct answer choice would be "the CEO of a company should call all buyers individually to provide them with information on energy used in manufacturing their products.") If the rule, when correctly applied to food, means food packaging should have nutrition facts, we're expecting that products should be labeled with "energy facts."

Answer Explanation:
Here we go, a perfect conclusion for the argument. This completes the comparison to the nutrition facts example, by applying the rule in the same way to a different situation. And we're satisfying the necessary condition of the rule, by providing relevant information to consumers.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments by comparison or analogy are common on the LSAT. If you struggle with them, try changing the subject; e.g., if the idea of "energy facts" is confusing, imagine that the stimulus instead referenced the difficulty of making informed decisions about sweatshop labor when buying clothes. Obviously the right application would be "manufacturers should label their clothing with information about how and where it was made," right? Or what about the difficulty of making informed purchasing decisions regarding meat, because we don't necessarily know how humanely the animals were raised? Any analogy will do in an argument by comparison. It's about the logic, not about the topic.