Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q6 Melchior: Some studies have linked

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

Melchior: Some studies have linked infants' consumption of formula made from cow's milk to subsequent diabetes.

Conclusion

Parents should feed cow's milk formula to their infants.

Evidence

(Even though there are studies linking cow's milk formula to eventual diabetes) cow's milk has a lot of ingredients in it that are excellent for infants' development.

Evaluate

Given That formula has a lot of valuable ingredients in it

How Could We Still Say That Parents should not feed formula to their infants?

Well, one direction would be to say that the risks of eventual diabetes are high enough that the nutritional benefits of formula aren't worth it. Since we've acknowledged a downside and an upside, we can still argue about which one is more important.

Secondarily, the author seems to be assuming a difference between formula and other available infant beverages.

Maybe breastmilk also has those valuable ingredients but doesn't have the same risk of eventual diabetes?

Maybe there's a formula that isn't from cow's milk, but goat's milk or sheep's milk, and it has the good ingredients without the diabetes risk.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining that the author failed to establish that the potential benefit of formula (nutritional ingredients) outweighs the potential downside of formula (eventual diabetes), or for an answer that asks whether we could get those same desirable nutritional ingredients that formula has in some other beverage or some other way that didn't carry with it a similar risk of diabetes.

6.

The reasoning in Melchior's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. Correct

    defends a certain practice on

    Why this is right

    Does the author defend a certain practice? Yes, she says, "Nonetheless, you should feed your infant formula" Does she do so on the basis that it has a certain benefit? Yup, based on the fact that it has several nutrients important to development. Does she fail to consider whether an alternative practice has the same benefit? Yes, she doesn't indicate in any way that formula is the only source, the best source, or even a good source of acquiring these nutrients, relative to other options. Is this a flaw? Yes, because she's advocating using something in spite of its health risks. If we can achieve the same positive that formula has without the negative we were warned about, then why would we choose to feed formula to our infants?

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

    86% picked this

  2. draws a conclusion that simply

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, where the conclusion and the premise are essentially the same idea. But the conclusion "you should feed your infant formula" and the premise "formula has developmentally useful nutrients in it" are two distinct thoughts.

    2% picked this

  3. inappropriately introduces normative claims in

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Does the evidence have normative claims? Sure. It says formula is an "excellent" source of several nutrients. Is the conclusion entirely factual? No, it's normative -- parents should feed formula to their infants.

    3% picked this

  4. distorts an argument against feeding

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to a flaw often referred to as Straw Man, but this author didn't distort an argument against feeding formula to infants. There was no argument against feeding formula to infants. She presented a study that is counterevidence to the idea that we should feed formula to infants, but no one has made an argument against formula, so there's no way our author could have distorted it.

    5% picked this

  5. confuses an absence of evidence

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, but in this flaw, an author concludes that a claim is false because is hasn't yet been proven to be true. This conclusion is not rejecting a claim. It's endorsing a practice based on one benefit of the practice.

    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