Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 12
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 12
October 24, 2015
Summary
Among adults in country X, most consume an increasing amount of fat as they get older. For example, at 30, they eat less fat than at 40, and at 40, they east less fat then at 50. But for almost all adults in country X, the percentage of fat in a person’s diet stays the same throughout adulthood.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If the amount of fat increases with age, but the percentage of one’s diet that is fat stays the same, that implies the overall amount of food eaten must increase with age. For example, let’s say fat is 10% of one’s diet. If you eat 200 grams of fat at 30 years old, that means you’re eating 2000 grams overall. Let’s say at 40 years old you eat 300 grams of fat; that means you’re eating 3000 grams overall.
A
They generally consume more fat than do people of the same age in other countries.
Unsupported. We don’t know anything about other countries besides country X.
B
They generally eat more when they are older than they did earlier in their adulthood.
Strongly supported. If the amount of fat eaten increases with age, but the proportion of fat in one’s diet stays the same, that means the overall amount eaten must increase.
C
They generally have diets that contain a lower percentage of fat than do the diets of children in country X.
Unsupported. We don’t know anything about children in country X.
D
They tend to eat more varied kinds of food as they become older.
Unsupported. Although the stimulus implies that the adults eat more food as they get older, that doesn’t mean they’re eating different kinds of food. They might just eat the same foods, but more of it.
E
They tend to lose weight as they become older.
Unsupported. We can infer that adults in the country eat more as they get older, but that doesn’t imply they lose weight as they get older. If anything, that could suggest they gain weight as they get older.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 11
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 11
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 09
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 09
October 24, 2015
A
treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exclusive
The argument does this. The author relies on the assumption that those who watch TV news coverage of current events don’t also read newspaper coverage of those events, and vice versa. The assumption that watching TV and reading newspapers are mutually exclusive is unfounded.
B
ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events
The argument isn’t concerned with whether people watch TV or read newspapers for other reasons. It’s concerned with whether people can be fully informed about current events by watching TV or reading newspapers.
C
makes crucial use of the term “depth of coverage” without defining it
The author isn’t required to define every term he uses, and the term “depth of coverage” isn’t used in an opaque or misleading way.
D
fails to consider the possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement with tragic or violent events
These possible disadvantages are irrelevant. The argument is only concerned with whether watching TV news coverage or reading newspapers allows people to fully understand current events.
E
mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it actually does so
The argument isn’t concerned with whether TV news programs or newspapers always perform certain functions just because they can. The argument is only focused on whether TV coverage or newspapers allow their consumers to fully understand current events.