LSAT 151 – Section 3 – Question 15

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 15

September 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:13

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
PT151 S3 Q15
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Sampling +Smpl
Analogy +An
A
26%
157
B
0%
145
C
71%
163
D
1%
141
E
2%
147
142
152
161
 +Medium 146.292 +SubsectionMedium

Some food historians conclude that recipes compiled by an ancient Roman named Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy Romans prepared and spiced their food. Since few other recipes from ancient Rome have survived, this conclusion is far too hasty. After all, the recipes of Apicius may have been highly atypical, just like the recipes of many notable modern chefs.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Some historians conclude that recipes compiled by Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy Romans made their food. The author’s conclusion is that the historian’s conclusion isn’t necessarily true. This is because only a few other recipes from Apicius’s time have survived, and Apicius’s recipes may be unrepresentative of ancient Roman food. The author also relies on an analogy to many modern chefs; just as their recipes are unusual, so too might be Apicius’s.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the historian’s conclusion by pointing out that it might be based on an unrepresentative sample of recipes. The author also relies on an analogy to support the possibility that the sample is unrepresentative.

A
It rejects a view held by some food historians solely on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support it.
Calling a conclusion “too hasty” is not the same as rejecting it. The author doesn’t necessarily believe the historians are wrong; he’s simply pointing out they might be wrong. Also, the author relies on an analogy; not “solely” on the claim that there’s insufficient evidence.
B
It offers support for a view held by some food historians by providing a modern analogue to that view.
The author does not support the historians’ view. He points out that there are reasons to think it might not be true.
C
It takes issue with the view of some food historians by providing a modern analogue that purportedly undercuts their view.
The author takes issue with the view of the historians (”the conclusion is too hasty”) by providing a modern analogue (”many notable modern chefs”) that purportedly undercuts the historians’ view (suggesting that Apicius’s recipes might be unrepresentative).
D
It uses a conclusion drawn by some food historians as the basis for a conclusion about a modern analogue.
The author’s conclusion is not about the modern chefs. The modern chefs are used as support for the conclusion that the historian’s conclusion is too hasty.
E
It tries to bolster a conclusion about the similarity of historical times to modern times by comparing a conclusion drawn by some food historians to a modern analogue.
The conclusion is not about the “similarity of historical times to modern times.” The author uses an analogy to modern chefs to conclude that we do not necessarily know that Apicius’s recipes are representative of the food of wealthy ancient Romans.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply