LSAT 135 – Section 1 – Question 08

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 08

December 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:51

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
PT135 S1 Q08
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
87%
165
B
1%
157
C
5%
158
D
1%
153
E
5%
157
130
142
153
 +Medium 146.098 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels. This shows that reading these labels promotes healthful dietary behavior.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that reading nutrition labels causes healthier dietary behavior. This is based on a correlation. The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read nutrition labels is lower than it is in the diets of people who don’t read nutrition labels.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation is explained by reading nutrition labels causing healthier dietary behavior. This overlooks alternate explanations. In particular, perhaps there’s a common cause that leads people to eat healthier and to read nutrition labels. Maybe the kind of person who’s into losing weight will read nutrition labels and be more careful about their diet.

A
illicitly infers a cause from a correlation
The author assumes a causal relationship based on the correlation between reading nutrition labels and having a lower proportion of fat in one’s diet.
B
relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative of the group as a whole
The evidence isn’t a sample. We’re told about a statistic concerning people who read nutrition labels and people who don’t. There’s no indication that the statistic is based on just a part of the overall population.
C
confuses a condition that is necessary for a phenomenon to occur with a condition that is sufficient for that phenomenon to occur
The argument’s reasoning isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
D
takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations of a phenomenon
The author doesn’t assume “two” possible alternative explanations. The author assumes there’s only one — that reading nutrition labels causes healthier dietary behavior.
E
draws a conclusion about the intentions of a group of people based solely on data about the consequences of their behavior
The conclusion isn’t about intentions. It’s simply a causal claim about the effects of reading nutrition labels. The conclusion does not assert that people who read nutrition labels are doing so in order to improve their diets.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply