LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 05

December 2009

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

Target time: 0:56

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
PT131 S2 Q05
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
0%
157
B
3%
155
C
5%
160
D
2%
155
E
90%
165
128
139
150
 +Easier 147.936 +SubsectionMedium

This stimulus starts with Gilbert’s conclusion: the food label is mistaken. We then get his premise: the label says that the cookie has only natural ingredients but the alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) contained in the cookies are produced synthetically at the cookie plant.

We then get Sabina’s argument. Again we start with her conclusion: the label is, in fact, not mistaken. She goes on to explain in her premise: AHA can also occur naturally in sugarcane.

Basically this boils down to the question of how you define natural ingredients. Is an ingredient natural if it can occur naturally as Sabina argues, or does it matter how the ingredient in question was produced, as Gilbert contends? The answer choice we’re looking for seems like it may resemble a sufficient assumption or PSA rule that will make Sabina’s argument valid. Let’s take a look:

Answer Choice (A) This is irrelevant. What we are concerned with is whether this particular label for these particular cookies is mistaken. If we look at Gilbert’s argument he tells us everything we need to know: we are talking about a particular batch of cookies that do contain AHA and we are discussing whether AHA constitutes a natural ingredient.

Answer Choice (B) Another irrelevant answer choice. We are only concerned with AHA, which we know is part of the cookies. Whether or not other chemicals don’t make it into the final batch doesn’t affect our argument.

Answer Choice (C) Again, we are concerned with this particular label for these particular cookies. This is irrelevant information.

Answer Choice (D) This doesn’t mean that Sabina is correct, it just means that other companies could be repeating similar falsehoods. What we are concerned with is whether or not the claims in question are accurate.

Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we need. It tells us that all substances (except those that don’t occur naturally in any source) are considered natural. What do we know about AHA? For one, it can be found occurring naturally in sugarcane. Therefore, it is included in the set of substances that can be considered natural. If it’s considered natural, what does that tell us about Sabina’s argument? It’s valid! Remember how I said we might be looking for something that resembles a PSA rule. Well here we have it! Her premise triggers this rule, which leads us directly to her conclusion: that the label which includes AHA in a set of all-natural ingredients is not mistaken.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply