The stimuli is not discussing people who drink caffeinated beverages, that is just an assumption we make when reading this passage. It says that listing caffeine content makes it easier to limit ones caffeine intake which, in turn, improves health. We assume, most naturally, that listing caffeine content improves health by reducing the intake of caffeinated beverages in at least some people. Yet that need not be the case. What if listing caffeine content resulted in the chemical release of neurotoxins in the people who read the label and that neurotoxin made it easier to limit but not eliminate caffeine? Well then, if the stimuli is true, they would get healthier. We don't know if thats how it happens because they don't say, but A would still be the right choice. All that matter here is that X leads to Y leads to Z and so X leads to Z. How it happens is irrelevant.
What if someone was doing a nutritional study and they had to find out the impact of soft drink consumption on overall health? They may or may not be a person who drinks soft drinks, but they're still concerned about this issue and would probably be on the side of displaying caffeine on labels. Hope this helps.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
2 comments
The stimuli is not discussing people who drink caffeinated beverages, that is just an assumption we make when reading this passage. It says that listing caffeine content makes it easier to limit ones caffeine intake which, in turn, improves health. We assume, most naturally, that listing caffeine content improves health by reducing the intake of caffeinated beverages in at least some people. Yet that need not be the case. What if listing caffeine content resulted in the chemical release of neurotoxins in the people who read the label and that neurotoxin made it easier to limit but not eliminate caffeine? Well then, if the stimuli is true, they would get healthier. We don't know if thats how it happens because they don't say, but A would still be the right choice. All that matter here is that X leads to Y leads to Z and so X leads to Z. How it happens is irrelevant.
What if someone was doing a nutritional study and they had to find out the impact of soft drink consumption on overall health? They may or may not be a person who drinks soft drinks, but they're still concerned about this issue and would probably be on the side of displaying caffeine on labels. Hope this helps.