Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S3 · Q7 Legislator: To keep our food

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

Legislator: To keep our food safe, we must prohibit the use of any food additives that have been found to cause cancer.

Commentator's Conclusion (thus)

We should set a max allowable level for each carcinogenic food additive, a nonzero amount that's somewhat below the threshold where it becomes problematic.

Commentator's Intermediate Conclusion

An absolute prohibition on these additives is excessive.

Commentator's Evidence

A test can detect a single molecule, but you can eat way more than that and it still doesn't increase your risk of getting cancer.

Evaluate

We're being asked to represent the Legislator, whose main vibe is, "We should prohibit these additives."

When we logically counter an argument, we address their ideas (we don't just independently offer new reasons for our idea). So we want to think about how someone who wants to ban these additives altogether would respond to the commentator's argument / suggestion.

She's worried that we'll be overly aggressive in policing these bans, flagging foods that have even a single molecule in them. We could maybe say,

She's saying humans can safely tolerate much higher levels. We could maybe say,

Goal

Let's look for an answer that helps us go,

7.

Of the following, which one, if true, is the logically strongest counter the legislator can make to the commentator's argument?

  1. The level at which a

    Unclear Impact

    Maybe we could try to use this to be like, "Your plan is too risky! What if we set the allowable level where adults can handle it but kids can't?" But why would we assume that? The commentator could be saying, "If 50mg is the level that leads to cancer in children then we set the allowable level below that".

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Consuming small amounts of several

    Why this is right

    This objection gives us way to say, "even if we follow your PLAN, it won't achieve the GOAL of avoiding cancer". After all, yes each product may have a tolerably small amount of the carcinogenic additives, but if consumers end up using a handful of these products at the same time, then they may well exceed the threshold where these chemicals start to become problematic.

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

    87% picked this

  3. The law would prohibit only

    No Impact

    This doesn't address any of the commentator's ideas or concerns. She would say, "Right, I am opposed to you banning the deliberate addition of these chemicals. I think companies should be allowed to deliberately add trace amounts of them, as long as it stays below the threshold of where the chemical becomes problematic."

    2% picked this

  4. For some food additives, the

    No Impact

    This is a very weak idea (Some = at least one), so it's unlikely to be correct on Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox. If there's a chemical that starts to be carcinogenic before it even is useful to the company using it, then the company presumably wouldn't use that chemical. Following the commentator's suggestion, there would be a maximum allowable limit and they would hit that limit before the additive was doing anything for their product, so they would just no bother using it.

    4% picked this

  5. All food additives have substitutes

    No Impact

    This might feel independently like it helps the legislator argue for a ban on these additives (after all, it's no big inconvenience to ban certain additives if they all have substitutes!) But it doesn't have anything to do with logically countering the commentator's ideas or her suggested alternative plan.

    3% 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