Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q24 Principle: If a food product

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

Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most consumers of that product would be upset to discover in it, then the food should be labeled as containing those ingredients.

Principle

most consumers would ingredient X be mad to discover → should be labeled ingredient X in a food on that food

Conclusion

Crackly Crisps don't need to be labeled for having genetically engineered ingredients.

Evidence

Most consumers would not be mad if they discovered genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps.

Evaluation

The principle said if most would be mad, do need to label. The argument said, for Crackly Crisps most wouldn't be mad, so don't need to label.

That's an illegal opposite (negation) of the rule, also known as the famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient.

Conversationally, the principle gave us one possible reason why you might need to label an ingredient. We can't assume that this is the only possible reason why you might need to label an ingredient.

Goal

Find an answer saying the author confused a sufficient condition for needing to label with a necessary one, or an answer pointing out a different reason you might need to label genetically engineered ingredients.

24.

The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. fails to address the possibility

    Not Representing General Consumers

    This rule only applies to most users of a product, and this argument attempts to apply this rule to most users of a product. It doesn't ever assume that Crackly Crisp consumers are representative of most.

    9% picked this

  2. fails to address the possibility

    Opposite

    This is not an objection: this would help the author conclude that genetically engineered ingredients don't need to be labeled (they've been proven safe!)

    1% picked this

  3. implicitly makes use of a

    Consistent Value Judgment

    The conclusion of the principle is a value judgment: "should be labeled". The conclusion of the author's argument is a value judgment: "need not be labeled". Even though the original principle allows us to conclude should be, not need not be, that's still "compatible". Incompatible = contradictory

    9% picked this

  4. takes for granted that if

    Out of Scope Assumption

    The author, nor the principle, are ever comparing situations where people know several vs. all ingredients. Both the principle and the argument are only ever focused on one ingredient.

    8% picked this

  5. Correct

    confuses a claim that under

    Why this is right

    Under the condition of most people would be mad to know this product has ingredient X, a certain action, labeling, should be taken. But the author confused that principle with a rule that would say, in the absence of that condition, if most people wouldn't be mad to know this product has ingredient X, an action, labeling, need not be taken.

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

    72% 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