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.
"Chocolate and Olive oil were considered unhealthy, but later studies showed that they have benefits. Therefore, officer, I propose that this bag full of illicit drugs and banned substances is–"
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.
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.
I was tempted by A. However, as said in the video, a source attack can provide reasonable suspicion, but it can never on its own refute the argument or claim. Reasonable suspicion does not equate evidence of falseness!
After all, quality of reasoning is independent of the source here. We have no evidence to not believe the report.
with question E: fails to consider that there are many foods that are reported to be unhealthful
the passage notes "The argument considers this"... does that mean if a flaw is already noted in the question that if it is brought up in the answer, we do not choose it as it has already been addressed?
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
35 comments
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.
These arguments are so adorable. I needed this
@cmhrandall593 same diva
I was on a roll till this level 1.......
now if all the LSAT was like this...
I just steamrolled through this section and then I spent 10 minutes on this thinking it's a 5-star.
Need more like this to boost my confidence.
why can't they all be like this
yoo, im becoming more confident on these lessons!!!
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'm going to be so honest; I had no idea what a confectioner was. Lmaoooo
hhahaha
i literally looked it up before answering lol. Thats the only valid way the LSAT can trip me up; using words idk
why cant all LSAT questions just be like this
FIRST!
"Chocolate and Olive oil were considered unhealthy, but later studies showed that they have benefits. Therefore, officer, I propose that this bag full of illicit drugs and banned substances is–"
This one legit made me LOL
I wanted to attack the argument and forgot it was a descriptive flaw
lol i was so confident i didnt even read past A
Finally an easy one:)
I read all of the flawed conclusions in my dad's voice.
I almost chose A. If it wasn't for that second study I would have picked it.
I was between A and C, 'relies on' saved me
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.
@EEM What do you mean the answers should be edited? Do you mean the explanations?
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.
I was tempted by A. However, as said in the video, a source attack can provide reasonable suspicion, but it can never on its own refute the argument or claim. Reasonable suspicion does not equate evidence of falseness!
After all, quality of reasoning is independent of the source here. We have no evidence to not believe the report.
with question E: fails to consider that there are many foods that are reported to be unhealthful
the passage notes "The argument considers this"... does that mean if a flaw is already noted in the question that if it is brought up in the answer, we do not choose it as it has already been addressed?
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