Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S1 · Q3 The number of calories in a gram

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The number of calories in a gram of refined cane sugar is the same as in an equal amount of fructose, the natural sugar found in fruits and vegetables.

Conclusion (Therefore)

A piece of candy with x amount of refined cane sugar is no higher calorie than a piece of fruit with x amount of fructose.

Evidence

The number of calories in a gram of refined cane sugar is the same as in a gram of fructose.

Evidence

Given that a gram of refined sugar has the same caloric content as a gram of fructose,

How could we argue that a piece of candy with x grams of refined sugar does have more calories than a piece of fruit with x grams of fructose?

Well when it comes to the head to head battle of refined sugar vs. fructose, we know they're tied in calories.

But could the candy have other ingredients (fat? carbs? protein?) that also adds calories that the fruit doesn't have?

Goal

This is basically a Part vs. Whole flaw, since the argument is thinking that since the "sugar part" of the candy/fruit would have the same calories, the candy/fruit "overall" would have the same calories.

3.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. fails to consider the possibility

    No Impact (noncaloric ingredients)

    Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks possibility, we would read this answer as a potential objection. Can we weaken the argument by talking about noncaloric nutrients that candy lacks? No. Our court case is about arguing that candy has more calories than fruit. An answer about noncaloric ingredients will have no impact on the conversation.

    5% picked this

  2. presupposes that all candy is

    Too Strong (all)

    Since this starts with presupposes / takes for granted, we would read this answer like we're doing Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that EVERY single piece of candy in the universe is made with a similar amount of sugar? Of course not. That would be a crazy claim to make in the real world. The author never committed herself to that crazy claim. Her conclusion is just saying "IF you find a piece of candy and fruit with similar grams of sugar, then they will have the similar calories overall."

    2% picked this

  3. confuses one kind of sugar

    Bad Description

    When we see the confuses X with Y format, we're asking ourselves whether the author considered two different things to be the same thing. Or, we're asking ourselves whether the author made a move from X to Y. Was the author thinking that refined cane sugar and fructose are the same thing? No. She knew that they were different, that refined cane sugar is found in candy whereas fructose is found in fruit. And her premise about a gram of either type of sugar containing the same calories is just a scientific fact, a similarity they have. If we saw that crows and robins both have beaks, that doesn't mean we're confusing one with the other.

    2% picked this

  4. presupposes what it sets out

    Not Circular Reasoning

    When an answer says that the premise repeats the conclusion or assumes / presupposes / presumes the truth of the conclusion, that is what is known as Circular Reasoning. It's super common as a wrong answer and incredibly rare as a correct answer. To assess whether this is actually happening, you ask yourself, "Do I have to believe the conclusion in order to accept the premise?" Can we accept that a gram of refined cane has the same calories as a gram of fructose, without accepting that a piece of candy with x grams of refined sugar has the same calories as a piece of fruit with x grams of fructose? Definitely. That means the author wasn't presuming her conclusion.

    7% picked this

  5. Correct

    overlooks the possibility that sugar

    Why this is right

    Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks possibility, we would read this answer as a potential objection. Can we weaken the argument by saying that there are OTHER calorie-containing ingredients in candy or fruit? Heck yeah, that was our prediction. What about carbs / fat / protein / etc? If there are other calorie-containing ingredients besides the sugar content, then we can't just say that a piece of candy and fruit that are tied when it comes to sugar are tied when it comes to calories. We need a full accounting for all the ingredients that contain calories.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    85% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free