Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.2K All Categories
- 27.9K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 13 November 2024 LSAT
- 11 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 632 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
1 Like
PT1.S3.Q08 - The common procedure for determining whether a food additive...
Tasha Sri
Member
Flaw Type: Equivocation flaw
Premise:
P. Comparing health benefits with potential risk.
P. Benefits of "enjoyment" of drinking outweighs allergic reaction risk.
C: Therefore, do not ban.
Anticipate: the author is falsely equivocating "enjoyment" = "health related benefits". This argument is flawed because they mischaracterized as enjoyment with something health related. Maybe if the dye helps 100% cure flu than 2% of allergic reaction, don't ban it.