Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S3 · Q11 Carrots are known to be

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

Carrots are known to be one of the best sources of naturally occurring vitamin A. However, although farmers in Canada and the United States report increasing demand for carrots over the last decade, the number of people diagnosed with vitamin A deficiency in these countries has also increased in that time.

Given that

Carrots are one of the best natural sources of vitamin A, and farmers report rising demand for carrots over the last decade.

Why is it that

Diagnoses of vitamin A deficiency have also risen over the same decade?

Evaluate

More carrots should mean more vitamin A in people and fewer deficiencies, not more.

Are people not eating these carrots? Does eating a carrot not help with vitamin A deficiency? Are the people who need the vitamin A not the ones who are eating the carrots? Is some other force out there making more people have vitamin A deficiency than before?

Goal

This is an EXCEPT question. Eliminate the four answers that explain why there's an uptick in vitamin A deficiency or why an uptick in demand for carrots isn't helping that problem.

11.

Each of the following, if true of Canada and the United States over the last decade, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above EXCEPT:

  1. The population has significantly increased

    Opposite

    This provides a storyline for why there are more cases of vitamin A deficiency. If the paradox were about a rising rate of vitamin deficiency, then absolute population size wouldn't matter. But since it's about a rising number of cases, a growing population would be expected to increase the number of cases of every illness / disorder / deficiency.

    8% picked this

  2. The purchase of peeled and

    Opposite

    This gives us a story where even though people are eating more carrots, they're not getting more vitamin A (since they're peeling the carrots, and that leads to the carrots' losing their vitamin content). Thus, the uptick in carrot eating hasn't translated into an uptick in vitamin A consumption.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    Certain cuisines that have become

    Why this is right

    This just makes it sound like people are eating more carrots, but it doesn't give us any way to explain why that isn't translating into helping with vitamin A deficiency. In essence, this answer explains the Background fact, not the surprise.

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

    76% picked this

  4. Carrot consumption has increased only

    Opposite

    This gives us a story for why increased carrot consumption hasn't reduced the number of people with vitamin A deficiency, by saying "the people eating extra carrots aren't ones who needed any extra vitamin A". The uptick in carrots isn't going to the people who need vitamin A, and thus it isn't helping reduce the number of people with vitamin A deficiency.

    8% picked this

  5. Weather conditions have caused a

    Opposite

    This gives us a storyline in which, even though there's more demand for carrots, there aren't actually more carrots being eaten, since there is a smaller supply of carrots available. If there aren't more carrots being eaten, then obviously we wouldn't expect it to help with our vitamin A deficiency issues.

    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