Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S1 · Q18 Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved

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

Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture, it is clear that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods, consisting mainly of raw fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, lean meat, and seafood.

Conclusion (thus)

The more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be.

Intermediate Conclusion (it's clear that)

Humans are still biologically adapted to wild foods.

Evidence (because)

Humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture.

Straying from this wild food diet has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems.

Goal

We're being asked about the 2nd claim, which seems to be an Intermediate Conclusion. It has its own support (the first half the sentence begins with BECAUSE, which is a support indicator).

But this claim seems to provide support for the final claim. Why should we believe that the more our diet is wild foods, the healthier we'll be? Because ... we're still adapted to wild foods.

18.

The claim that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods plays which one of the following roles in the nutritionist's argument?

  1. It is a conclusion for

    Trap

    Bad Evidence Match Too Strong (the only support) Our claim is a conclusion, and you could say that the fact that straying from wild diets leads to health problems is support for the idea that we're still adapted to wild diets. But the other supporting claim is the first one (we've evolved very little since inventing agriculture), which is prefaced by the Support Indicator "because".

    3% picked this

  2. It is a premise for

    Bad Description: premise

    There is justification provided, which is why this is an Intermediate Conclusion not just a premise. Because we've evolved very little, it's clear we're still adapted to wild.

    4% picked this

  3. It is a phenomenon for

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is "The more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be." The explanation for why we are still adapted to wild foods is that "we've evolved very little since inventing agriculture".

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is an intermediate conclusion

    Why this is right

    This is what we were looking for. The first claim "we've evolved little" is provided as support for our claim, and our claim supports the idea that "the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we'll be".

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

    86% picked this

  5. It is a premise offered

    Bad Conclusion Match

    An Intermediate Conclusion is technically still a premise (it's just called a supported premise), but the conclusion our claim is supporting is "The more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be". The claim that "humans have evolved very little" is SUPPORT for our claim, not the other way around, as this answer says.

    5% 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