LSAT 139 – Section 1 – Question 09

LSAT 139 - Section 1 - Question 09

June 2013

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

Target time: 0:42

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
PT139 S1 Q09
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
A
93%
165
B
0%
154
C
4%
155
D
2%
156
E
1%
154
134
142
150
 +Medium 142.273 +SubsectionEasier

Video of JY doing this

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

Doctor: It would benefit public health if junk food were taxed. Not only in this country but in many other countries as well, the excessive proportion of junk food in people’s diets contributes to many common and serious health problems. If junk food were much more expensive than healthful food, people would be encouraged to make dietary changes that would reduce these problems.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Taxing junk food would benefit public health. Eating too much junk food causes many common and severe health problems. If junk food were more expensive than healthy food, people would be more motivated to eat healthier, which would reduce these problems.

Identify Conclusion
Taxing junk food would benefit public health.

A
Taxing junk food would benefit public health.
This states the main conclusion. The doctor argues that taxing junk food would improve public health. The rest of the passage explains why taxing junk food would have this effect. Since unhealthy eating causes many health problems, taxing junk food would help reduce these issues.
B
In many countries, the excessive proportion of junk food in people’s diets contributes to many common and serious health problems.
This is a premise. The doctor claims that in many countries, including the doctor's, overeating junk food causes serious health problems. This supports the argument that making junk food more expensive would improve public health by reducing overeating and these related problems.
C
If junk food were much more expensive than healthful food, people would be encouraged to make dietary changes that would reduce many common and serious health problems.
This is a premise. The doctor claims that if junk food were more expensive, people would eat healthier food, reducing health problems. This claim supports the doctor's main conclusion that taxing junk food would improve public health.
D
Taxing junk food would encourage people to reduce the proportion of junk food in their diets.
This is a premise. The claim that taxing junk food would make people eat less of it and more healthy food supports the doctor's argument that taxing junk food would improve public health by reducing the risk of health problems linked to eating too much junk food.
E
Junk food should be taxed if doing so would benefit public health.
The doctor doesn’t make this claim. The doctor concludes that taxing junk food will have at least one positive effect—it will benefit public health—but doesn’t recommend that junk food should be taxed based on this effect. Other considerations may weigh against taxing junk food.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply