I see why C is a better fit, but I was so confident it was B. I was really caught up on the fact that the claim was "oily foods clog arteries" was 'disproved' by an example about olive oil. Does that not matter here? I took that to be an improper example given the general rule
These answers, specifically in the stimulus and for answer choice A, should be edited. The author does not rely on the truth of a claim by a biased source. The author does not touch the truthfulness of the chocolate claim or the oily food claim. It treats these reports as events when it concludes, "almost any food will be reported to be healthful." Reported makes no comment on the truthfulness of the claim. So the biased source error does not occur.
Is another flaw the fact that the argument conflates the presence of health benefits with the food being healthful? For example, red wine has antioxidants (a benefit) but isn't necessarily "healthful" overall.
to identify part to wholeor the other way around is the wording in the premises to the wording in the conclusion. if they talk about instantces in the premises and then apply that to an overall instance then its part to whole, if they do it backwards it is whole to part
I actually would argue that A is not fully descriptively accurate. While the stimulus does cite a report commissioned by a source that may be biased, it does not draw a conclusion about the actual healthfulness of foods - it just states that they will be reported to be healthful. No matter who it is that reports a food as healthful, and no matter how accurate their claim is, they're still reporting it. Thus, the stimulus does not rely on the truth of the claim, just that the claim exists.
I understand that a "source attack" is an inaccurate means of justifying a flaw on the LSAT. However, believing that such an innately biased source is truthful in the first place without providing further evidence in a real-life setting and then stating that a rebuttal on those grounds is problematic is a burden of proof fallacy.
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
29 comments
yayaya!!! got it right :)
I see why C is a better fit, but I was so confident it was B. I was really caught up on the fact that the claim was "oily foods clog arteries" was 'disproved' by an example about olive oil. Does that not matter here? I took that to be an improper example given the general rule
lol i was so confident i didnt even read past A
I just steamrolled through this section and then I spent 10 minutes on this thinking it's a 5-star.
I was on a roll till this level 1.......
These answers, specifically in the stimulus and for answer choice A, should be edited. The author does not rely on the truth of a claim by a biased source. The author does not touch the truthfulness of the chocolate claim or the oily food claim. It treats these reports as events when it concludes, "almost any food will be reported to be healthful." Reported makes no comment on the truthfulness of the claim. So the biased source error does not occur.
@EEM came to the chat for this exact reason.
Is another flaw the fact that the argument conflates the presence of health benefits with the food being healthful? For example, red wine has antioxidants (a benefit) but isn't necessarily "healthful" overall.
These arguments are so adorable. I needed this
@cmhrandall593 same diva
I was between A and C, 'relies on' saved me
I'm going to be so honest; I had no idea what a confectioner was. Lmaoooo
i literally looked it up before answering lol. Thats the only valid way the LSAT can trip me up; using words idk
hhahaha
why cant all LSAT questions just be like this
now if all the LSAT was like this...
Need more like this to boost my confidence.
I read all of the flawed conclusions in my dad's voice.
This one legit made me LOL
How do I recognize part/whole LR questions when they are sporadically placed throughout the test?
to identify part to wholeor the other way around is the wording in the premises to the wording in the conclusion. if they talk about instantces in the premises and then apply that to an overall instance then its part to whole, if they do it backwards it is whole to part
why can't they all be like this
Finally an easy one:)
Joke's on you I didn't even see A as a trap answer because I totally missed the confectioners trade association part!!
I should read more gooder.
I actually would argue that A is not fully descriptively accurate. While the stimulus does cite a report commissioned by a source that may be biased, it does not draw a conclusion about the actual healthfulness of foods - it just states that they will be reported to be healthful. No matter who it is that reports a food as healthful, and no matter how accurate their claim is, they're still reporting it. Thus, the stimulus does not rely on the truth of the claim, just that the claim exists.
Came to the comments to see if I was the only one who thought this
I understand that a "source attack" is an inaccurate means of justifying a flaw on the LSAT. However, believing that such an innately biased source is truthful in the first place without providing further evidence in a real-life setting and then stating that a rebuttal on those grounds is problematic is a burden of proof fallacy.
yoo, im becoming more confident on these lessons!!!
FIRST!