PT12.S1.Q16 - Salmonella is a food-borne microorganism that can cause...

Comments

• 1 Like

  LivinLaVidaLSAT Alum Member

  April 2021 710 karma

  In short, the argument says they should use the new Salmonella test because it’s better.

  My strategy for weaken questions:
  This is a question-type that challenges me because the gap typically doesn’t jump out at me. I usually have to narrow it down by eliminating the wrong answers. I routinely use the strategy of advocating for the anti-conclusion for weaken questions. I look for an answer that pushes me in the direction of the anti-conclusion. This strategy works best for me. It puts me in the mindset of objecting to the argument (allowing me to see gaps - not necessarily predicting the answer). In turn, I’m able to eliminate answer choices faster.

  Conclusion: Health officials should replace the old tests with the new test.
  Premise: Traditional tests are slow and might miss unusual strains of Salmonella.
  Premise: The new test can determine the presence or absence of Salmonella by looking for a certain piece of genetic material found in all strains.

  Anti-conclusion: Health officials shouldn’t replace the old tests with the new tests.

  B. The new test just tells you if Salmonella is present or not. If they use the new test, the alarm will sound even if the Salmonella level isn’t a health risk (food still okay for consumption). This makes the new test less reliable for its intended purpose. So since there is a downside, maybe health officials shouldn't switch.

  This answer weakens the link between the premises and the conclusion. It weakens the idea that the new test is better because it will catch all the strains while the traditional tests may miss some strains. Note that “identifying strains” is the only comparison we’re given between the traditional and new tests.
• FautApprendreLSAT1 Core Member

  April 2021 314 karma

  @LivinLaVidaLSAT Thank you!