LSAT 111 – Section 1 – Question 06

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 1 - Question 06

October 2001

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

Target time: 0:54

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 Q06	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff	A 2% 159 B 90% 165 C 5% 155 D 0% 158 E 2% 160	130 141 151	+Easier	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

The proponent concludes that there’s no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. As support, he gives four claims:

(1) Irradiation prevents food from spoiling before reaching stores.

(2) It leaves behind no radiation.

(3) Vitamin loss from irradiation and from cooking are the same.

(4) It kills harmful Salmonella bacteria.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Per the question stem, we need to find the gap between claim (3) above and the conclusion that irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional or safety reasons.

The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same amount of vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons. But what if you cook irradiated food? Wouldn’t it have twice as much vitamin loss? Or if you don’t cook it, wouldn’t it still have more vitamin loss than non-irradiated raw food?

After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.

This is an issue with consumers’ storage practices, not with irradiation. Also, the author only claims that irradiation prevents food from spoiling before it reaches stores. He doesn’t say anything about it spoiling after it’s purchased. (A) also fails to address vitamin loss.

Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.

The author assumes that since irradiation and cooking cause the same vitamin loss, irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutrition reasons. But if irradiated foods are cooked, they lose twice the vitamins. And if eaten raw, they’ve already lost more vitamins than other raw food.

Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.

This may be true, but the proponent’s conclusion addresses safety and nutrition. Vitamin loss is surely included in nutrition.

Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.

This may be true, but the argument just addresses vitamin loss due to irradiation. Even if one can still take vitamin supplements, it doesn’t impact the argument that irradiation shouldn’t be rejected for nutritional reasons because it causes the same vitamin loss as cooking.

That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.

This may be true, but it doesn't address vitamin loss, nor does it impact the argument. The argument is just about whether or not there’s grounds to reject irradiation. It doesn’t matter who benefits from the food not spoiling.

LSAT 111 – Section 1 – Question 06

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 1 - Question 06

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