LSAT 120 – Section 3 – Question 07
LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 07
October 2005You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:18
This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds
| Question QuickView |
Type | Tags | Answer Choices |
Curve | Question Difficulty |
Psg/Game/S Difficulty |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT120 S3 Q07 |
+LR
| Weaken +Weak Causal Reasoning +CausR | A
2%
155
B
94%
163
C
1%
153
D
2%
155
E
1%
155
|
128 137 146 |
+Easier | 146.629 +SubsectionMedium |
Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to cause cancer.
Commentator: An absolute prohibition is excessive. Today’s tests can detect a single molecule of potentially cancer-causing substances, but we know that consuming significantly larger amounts of such a chemical does not increase one’s risk of getting cancer. Thus, we should instead set a maximum acceptable level for each problematic chemical, somewhat below the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer but above zero.
Summarize Argument
The commentator concludes that there should be a maximum acceptable level for potentially cancer-causing substances in food that is above zero but below the amount shown to cause cancer. This is because an absolute prohibition, as proposed by the legislator, is excessive, as one can consume some amount of these substances without increasing their risk of cancer.
Notable Assumptions
The commentator assumes that while it may be safe to consume some amount of these substances in one food without increasing one’s risk of cancer, this risk does not increase significantly if one consumes this same amount in various foods. In the same vein, the commentator assumes that ingesting a safe amount of one problematic chemical in addition to safe amounts of other problematic chemicals does not significantly increase one’s cancer risk.
A
The level at which a given food additive has been shown to lead to cancer in children is generally about half the level at which it leads to cancer in adults.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. There is no reason to believe that the commentator’s suggested maximum acceptable levels for each substance do not account for children’s tolerance as well as that of adults.
B
Consuming small amounts of several different cancer-causing chemicals can lead to cancer even if consuming such an amount of any one cancer-causing chemical would not.
This weakens the commentator’s argument. It exploits the commentator’s assumption that the risk of cancer does not substantially increase when a safe amount of one problematic chemical is consumed in addition to a safe amount of another problematic chemical.
C
The law would prohibit only the deliberate addition of cancer-causing chemicals and would not require the removal of naturally occurring cancer-causing substances.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument, which discusses how chemicals should be regulated, not which chemicals should be regulated. If only some chemicals are covered, the commentator would just argue that acceptable limits should be set instead of complete prohibitions.
D
For some food additives, the level at which the substance has been shown to lead to cancer is lower than the level at which the additive provides any benefit.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The commentator does not compare the risk of cancer posed by additives to the potential benefit one derives from consuming them.
E
All food additives have substitutes that can be used in their place.
This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The existence of alternatives for the additives does not offer insight into how well the commentator’s proposed approach would work for either the additives or the alternatives, especially in contrast to the legislator’s approach.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section 2 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.