Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S2 · Q23 Consumer advocate: TMD

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

Consumer advocate: TMD, a pesticide used on peaches, shows no effects on human health when it is ingested in the amount present in the per capita peach consumption in this country.

Conclusion

TMD has not been shown to be an acceptable practice.

Evidence

Although TMD seems to have no effect on human health when an average amount is ingested, there is a small minority that eats tons more peaches than average and thereby ingests much more than an average amount of TMD.

Evaluation

Because of the wording of the conclusion, we know we'll want a Principle that feels like, _______ → not shown to be acceptable practice

What is the author's rationale for thinking it hasn't been shown to be acceptable? For the 20% of the population that eats more peaches than average, they would consume much more than the amount of TMD that has been shown to be safe.

Goal

We want something like,

a practice could lead to some portion of people → not acceptable being exposed to unsafe levels

23.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the consumer advocate's argumentation?

  1. The possibility that more data

    Bad Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match

    This isn't a rule that helps us to conclude that a practice is not acceptable, so we could stop reading there. But it also does a poor job of tying into the premise, which was about the 20% of people who eat a high dose.

    9% picked this

  2. The consequences of using a

    Bad Premise Match

    The conclusion half of this is somewhat weak ("unlikely to be acceptable"), but it would do something to strengthen the argument if the premise matched. However, the premise doesn't match. This rule says majority of the population practice unlikely likely to ingest pesticide ? to be acceptable But the evidence in this argument was that only 20% are likely to ingest the pesticide.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    Use of a pesticide is

    Why this is right

    This rule said pesticide isn't used for intended purpose use of pesticide or ? not acceptable pesticide hasn't been shown to be harmless for whole population We know that this pesticide has been shown to be safe when consumed at an average dose, but since one portion (20%) of the population consumes it at far higher than an average dose, then we don't know whether this pesticide is going to be harmless for the whole population. Since we haven't shown that this would be safe for the whole population, we've triggered the rule, and it delivers us the conclusion we sought: not an acceptable practice.

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

    70% picked this

  4. Society has a special obligation

    Bad Conclusion Match Bad Premise Match

    This says: average dose received by population are not low society has a or ? special obligation average dose has been to protect small shown to be harmful children to children's health The right side of this rule doesn't give us the "not acceptable practice" language we're looking for in the conclusion. And the trigger doesn't match the premises. The average dose received by the population is either low (if you consider that 80% of people have none of it), or it's average (if you consider that it's average). We don't have any means of quantifying whether a given dosage is high or low. Also, it has not been shown that this pesticide is harmful to kids' health.

    11% picked this

  5. Measures taken to protect the

    Weak: sometimes Bad Conclusion Match

    This is a super weak idea, so it would never be right on a Principle-Justify question. It's also hard to match up with anything. Was there a measure taken to protect the population from a harm? Not that I remember.

    7% 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