LSAT 14 – Section 4 – Question 16

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

Target time: 1:08

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

Type Tags Answer
Curve Question
PT14 S4 Q16
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
+Medium 148.703 +SubsectionMedium

Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument proceeds by…”

After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. The stimulus begins by telling us the overall opinion - that organic foods should not be the only natural foods. The support for this is that plants will turn non-natural and natural molecules into compounds. The author says that because all compounds are part of nature, they are equally natural.

In connecting evidence about natural molecules to the label of natural foods, our argument is making an assumption. The speaker assumes that because something occurs naturally in nature, it must be able to be defined as a natural food. But we don’t know what the label “natural food” requires. It could require that all inputs into the growing process come naturally from the soil. Knowing that our speaker assumes that something in nature translates to the label of natural food, we can jump into answer choice elimination.

Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for. Our stimulus is changing the use of the term “natural” to fit their opinion. Because this is the only answer choice referencing the changing of terminology, we know this is the correct answer.

Answer Choice (B) This answer choice claims the conclusion of the stimulus focuses on what would be beneficial. But we know the conclusion concerns the restriction of the term natural foods to organic products. Because the conclusion of our stimulus doesn’t match the conclusion of this answer choice, we can eliminate it.

Answer Choice (C) If our argument were appealing to some sort of authority, we would expect a reference to some respected professional or publication that relates to the topic of natural foods. Without any of these references in the stimulus, we can eliminate this answer choice.

Answer Choice (D) Saying that our argument shows a necessary condition is not satisfied indicates the speaker uses conditional reasoning to come to their conclusion. Instead of showing the failure of something to occur our author gives the occurrence of plants in nature to widen the scope of the “natural food” definition. Because of this, we can eliminate the answer choice.

Answer Choice (E) Rather than reject evidence to support the conclusion, our stimulus introduces their own scientific backings to prove the validity of their position. In order for our stimulus to be reinterpreting something, we would have to have an original contrasting interpretation.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply