LSAT 111 – Section 1 – Question 05

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.

Ask a tutor

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 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

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.

A
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.
B
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.
C
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.
D
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.
E
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.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply