Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q21 The studies showing that increased

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

The studies showing that increased consumption of fruits and vegetables may help decrease the incidence of some types of cancer do not distinguish between organically grown and nonorganically grown produce; they were conducted with produce at least some of which contained pesticide residues.

Conclusion (therefore)

There is no increased health risk associated with eating fruits and veggies containing pesticide residues.

Evidence

Studies showing that increased consumption of fruits and veggies can decrease the incidence of cancer used at least some produce that contained pesticide residues.

Evaluate

This conclusion is very strong and very counterintuitive -- there's no increased risk from pesticide residues? How did the author convince himself of this crazy conclusion?

He saw that in a study where people were eating fruit / veggies that contained some pesticide residues, their risk of cancer when down.

That doesn't prove that pesticides have no health risks attached. First of all, it's possible that the study's subjects would have seen their rate of cancer drop even further if the fruit and veggies were pesticide free.

If I get straight A's while smoking pot every day, that doesn't prove that . The fact that a positive outcome is possible while X is true doesn't show that X has no negative implications.

Secondly, the author is only paying attention to the fact that the incidence of some types of cancer went down. What if other things changed for the worse? Maybe the incidence of other types of cancer went up. Maybe the risk of heart disease or stroke went up, due to the pesticide residues.

Goal

We need a conclusion that is saying, "X is harmless" and evidence that is saying .

21.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the pattern of flawed reasoning in the argument above?

Correct
Research shows that the incidence
Why this is right
This conclusion has the same "X is harmless" vibe as the original: there is no increased health risk associated with living next to a nuclear power plant. The evidence also presented a situation in which "a good outcome was achieved even though some X was present": the incidence of some major illnesses was lower in places with power plants, including some that had nuclear power plants. There's even a part of this that matches the original that we didn't put into our initial synopsis because it didn't seem crucial. The original said "the good outcome happened, whether the fruit / veggies were organic (pesticide-free) or with pesticides". Here we're saying the good outcome happened whether the power plant was traditional (non-nuclear) or nuclear.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this
Research has shown that there
Bad Conclusion Match
This conclusion doesn't sound anything like "X is harmless". It says, "X is a more useful strategy for achieving A than Y is." Whatever the status of this argument, flawed or not, it's not going to match the original flaw if the conclusion isn't trying to argue that something has no risk associated with it.
1% picked this
Research has shown that young
Weak Premise Match
This conclusion has the "X is harmless" vibe. driving a motorcycle has no increased risk, compared to driving a car. The original conclusion was "eating fruit / veggies with pesticide residue has no increased risk, compared to fruit / veggies without pesticides residue". So the evidence should be saying, "There was a good outcome in this situation, even though motorcycles were partially involved". It somewhat does, but it's a weaker match than is the correct answer. Also, the flaw in this argument might be more directed as us saying, "Wait a sec ... in this study, where the motorcyclists ended up having a lower rate of being involved in accidents, why are we crediting the motorcycle? Isn't it more likely that the motorcycle group had a lower accident rate because of one full year of extensive driving instruction?" The original argument had nothing like that. It wasn't a study comparing organic fruit / veggies to nonorganic fruit / veggies that had pesticide residues but also had been fortified with extra vitamins (something giving it a health-boost akin to these motorcyclists who got a safety boost from one year of extensive driving instruction).
9% picked this
Research has shown that kitchen
Bad Evidence Match
This conclusion correctly captures the "there's no increased risk with X" gist we need. There's no increased risk from using wooden cutting boards. The evidence should be showing that "a good outcome was achieved, regardless of whether they used wooden or plastic". Instead, the evidence says "a bad outcome was achieved either way (lingering microbes), but a better outcome (fewer lingering microbes) was achieved with wooden boards". That doesn't match the original well. We didn't hear that fruit / veggies with pesticides had some advantage relative to organic fruit / veggies.
11% picked this
Research shows that there is
Weak Conclusion Match Topic Trap
This conclusion feels a little off, since it's saying, "There's no increased risk when you do X, so long as you also do Y". The original conclusion didn't say, "There's no increased risk from pesticide residues, as long as you wash them really well." We should also be very suspicious of this answer choice, given that it's recycling the topic of fruits and vegetables. It's almost unheard of for any Parallel or Analogy correct answer to actually use the same / similar topic as the original.
4% 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