Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 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
- 641 Technical Problems
- 287 Off-topic
PT15.S2.Q8 - Toxic substances in food supply
TEE1SIXTY
Core Member
The stimulus opens with a question, (Is it correct for the gov't to abandon efforts to determine toxicity levels in food supply?) and the next sentence is the answer. How is the answer to that question the MC when the following sentence begins with "however"? In this context, does "however" NOT indicate a change from context to argument? "Furthermore" in the next sentence indicates an additional premise. But, I also see a complex sentence -indicated by the semicolon. Is what follows after the semicolon the main conclusion? What am I missing or reading too deeply into?
Comments
Ah, this is one of those stims where the test makers would love for you to just look for indicator words, but that can trip you up, especially with more difficult questions. What you need to ask yourself with any MP question is WHY is the author writing this? What are they trying to tell me? If you distill it down, the author is talking to us about the government determining acceptable levels of toxic substances in food. The rest is window dressing and distraction, especially the way it's worded. Best of luck!