PT37.S2.Q12 - one cannot prepare a good meal from bad food

OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
edited April 2017 in Logical Reasoning 2326 karma

I don't get the explanation for why A is right. All we know is that do produce a good meal you can't have bad food. That would seem to imply that you could have a good meal with mediocre food. So how can you then take the the next conditional relationship between bad soil and good food to prove anything about good meals. All you can prove is that you can't have good food with bad soil. But maybe you can have mediocre food with bad soil. And if so, you can possibly produce a good meal with bad soil, since mediocre food can possibly produce a good meal.

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

Comments

  • ss1087654ss1087654 Alum Member
    20 karma

    This is the conditional chain presented in the stimulus:

    good meals --> good food --> good soil --> good farming --> cultural values etc

    So A can be inferred; good meals depends on both natural conditions (good soil) and cultural ones (all that cultural values stuff).

    But maybe you can have mediocre food with bad soil. And if so, you can possibly produce a good meal with bad soil, since mediocre food can possibly produce a good meal.

    Well, it doesn't help to think in shades of gray like that with conditional logic. There is no mediocre, there are only "good" and "not good" (i.e. bad).

    Good meals cannot be produced from "not good" food, you are mistaken about that.

    I mean, it makes sense if you accept the conditional chain above right? If so, then you just need to revisit conditional logic and make sure you understand it better.

  • Burden.of.FloofBurden.of.Floof Core Member
    1050 karma

    Reviving this thread because this question doesn't make any sense to me.

    At BEST you can say that good food ---> not bad food. If you go through the chain and link everything up that way, you still don't get to say that a good meal depends on anything except not bad food.

  • hotranchsaucehotranchsauce Member
    edited June 2021 288 karma

    You have to make /bad mean good or else it makes no sense. I think this would not be a false dichotomy but indeed an actual dichotomy.

    good meal --> /bad food

    good food --> /bad soil

    good soil --> good farming --> culture

    GM --> /bad food <--> good food --> /bad soil <--> good soil --> good farming --> culture

    A. yes
    B. Natural resources, out of scope. It's saying ALL NATURAL RESOURCES, like ever. No.
    C. I think this is talking in terms of causality, we are talking conditionality, remove
    D. good culture never appears, remove
    E. poor soil is nowhere. We can work with bad soil and /bad soil, but we can't talk in terms of poor soil. Poor is not part of our bad, good, /bad, /good dichotomy. Remove.

    In my opinion lol

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    edited June 2021 8491 karma

    @"Burden.of.Floof" said:
    Reviving this thread because this question doesn't make any sense to me.

    At BEST you can say that good food ---> not bad food. If you go through the chain and link everything up that way, you still don't get to say that a good meal depends on anything except not bad food.

    @businesskarafa said:
    You have to make /bad mean good or else it makes no sense. I think this would not be a false dichotomy but indeed an actual dichotomy.

    It's not a dichotomy but doesn't need to be. While there isn't just good and bad food, you can still say that if you have good food, you do not have bad food. Lots of other things can still be "not bad food..." good food is just one of them.

    When it comes to ways I get to work, it's not either I have a skateboard or a Ferrari. I could have a regular car, or take the bus... but my skateboard definitely is /Ferrari.

    They're definitely pushing you toward seeing a false dichotomy... IMO this is intentional and the primary difficulty of this question.

Sign In or Register to comment.