LSAT 111 – Section 1 – Question 05

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 1 - Question 05

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:24

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT111 S1 Q05	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 2% 153 B 3% 158 C 9% 160 D 1% 155 E 86% 165	130 142 154	+Medium	147.471 +SubsectionMedium

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.

Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

In response to the proponent’s claim that there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety, the opponent states irradiation does not kill botulism bacteria but kills bacteria that warn consumers of botulism. Moreover, a safe chemical drip easily kills salmonella and the bacteria that causes botulism.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The opponent counters the position held by the proponent. He does this by suggesting an alternative method. A safe chemical drip would achieve the benefit of killing salmonella and does not fail to kill botulism bacteria.

isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument

There is no ambiguity in the proponent’s argument. The opponent does not discuss two or more interpretations of a term the proponent uses in their argument.

showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction

The proponent’s argument does not result in a self-contradiction. The opponent addresses the proponent’s argument by presenting an additional consideration the proponent fails to account for.

establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies

The opponent does not discuss any undesirable consequences of the chemical drip method. He only addresses undesirable consequences resulting from the irradiation method.

shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers

The opponent does not address safety with response to producers. His claims are only in the perspective of safety with respect to consumers.

pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

The advantage claimed by the proponent is the advantage of killing salmonella. The disadvantage is the irradiation method kills bacteria that warn of botulism without actually killing botulism. The alternative way the opponent proposes is the safe chemical drip method.

LSAT 111 – Section 1 – Question 05

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 1 - Question 05

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel