Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT134 S1 Q24 Explanation

Principle: If a food product

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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

Application: Crackly Crisps need not be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients, since most consumers of Crackly Crisps would discovered that fact.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
24.

The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the

Answer choices

  1. Not Representing General Consumers9% picked this

    fails to address the possibility that consumers of a specific food may not be representative of 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.

  2. Opposite2% picked this

    fails to address the possibility that the genetically engineered ingredients in Crackly Crisps may have been proven

    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!)

  3. Consistent Value Judgment10% picked this

    implicitly makes use of a value judgment that is incompatible with the

    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

  4. Out of Scope Assumption8% picked this

    takes for granted that if most consumers of a product would buy it even if they knew several of the ingredients in it, then

    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.

  5. Correct71% picked this

    confuses a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken

    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.

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