LSAT 132 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 132 - Section 2 - Question 06

December 2010

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:12

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
PT132 S2 Q06
+LR
Must be true +MBT
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
89%
164
B
7%
155
C
2%
155
D
1%
152
E
0%
151
129
140
151
 +Easier 148.345 +SubsectionMedium

Although some nutritional facts about soft drinks are listed on their labels, exact caffeine content is not. Listing exact caffeine content would make it easier to limit, but not eliminate, one’s caffeine intake. If it became easier for people to limit, but not eliminate, their caffeine intake, many people would do so, which would improve their health.

Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences
If exact caffeine content were listed on soft drink labels, some people would limit their caffeine intake.
If it became easier for people to limit their caffeine intake, some people’s health would improve.
If exact caffeine content were listed on soft drink labels, some people’s health would improve.

A
The health of at least some people would improve if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels.
Must be true. As shown in the stimulus diagram, if caffeine content is listed, it’s easier to limit intake; if it it’s easier to limit intake, some people would; if people do, their health improves. So “list caffeine content” is a sufficient condition for “improve their health”!
B
Many people will be unable to limit their caffeine intake if exact caffeine content is not listed on soft-drink labels.
Could be false. Answer choice (B) has a negation issue: it takes a statement from the stimulus (list caffeine content → easier to limit) and negates the sufficient condition. We can’t draw conclusions from negated sufficient conditions—that’s like taking half the contrapositive!
C
Many people will find it difficult to eliminate their caffeine intake if they have to guess exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about what happens if people have to guess how much caffeine is in their soft drinks; we only have information about what happens if the caffeine content is listed.
D
People who wish to eliminate, rather than simply limit, their caffeine intake would benefit if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels.
Could be false. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about people who wish to eliminate their caffeine intake; we only have information about some people who would limit their intake if soft drink labels listed exact content.
E
The health of at least some people would worsen if everyone knew exactly how much caffeine was in their soft drinks.
Could be false. While we know that some people’s health would improve if they could see soft drinks’ caffeine content on the label, we know nothing about people outside that group—maybe some people’s health would worsen, or maybe everyone else’ health would stay the same.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 132 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply