Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S1 · Q10 A new process enables

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

A new process enables ordinary table salt to be fortified with iron.

Conclusion

The new process of fortifying table salt with iron could help reduce the high incidence of anemia in the world's population due to iron deficiency.

Evidence (and)

Salt is used all over the globe to preserve and flavor food, and people eat enough salt that this fortified kind would provide significant iron amounts.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion and Role, we prime our brain with a reminder, before reading the argument: the Conclusion will usually be earlier than the Support.

Since those two questions types are primarily testing our ability to find the Main Conclusion, LSAC wants to make it harder to find. Putting it as the last claim is too easy. So they often make it one of the first couple claims, or make it part of a rebuttal, or use some pronouns or referential language (or any combo of the three) to increase the challenge.

When we read Main Conclusion and Role, listen for an early claim that sounds like an Opinion. If it belongs to the author and the paragraph goes on to support that Opinion, then you know you've found the Main Conclusion.

The first sentence is definitely a fact -- a new process has been invented. The second sentence is an opinion, because it's a prediction. Anything about the future is pretty much automatically an opinion.

And we can tell it's the author's opinion because it's not being attributed to anyone else.

Finally, the keyword "and" is always joining together two Supporting ideas, so seeing the last two claims attached by "and" lets us know that those two claims work in tandem to support what came before.

Goal

Since they're asking us about the final claim, we want something like - Premise - Support - Evidence - Partial Support (since there is more than one premise)

10.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that people consume salt in quantities that would provide iron in significant amounts?

  1. It is the conclusion of

    Wrong Role

    The second sentence is the conclusion. We know this last claim isn't the conclusion because it's a quantitative fact and because it isn't supported by anything. The author hasn't given us any reason to think that people consume salt in large enough quantities that the fortified-with-iron would add up to a significant iron amount. Supporting reasons for that claim would address questions like, "what % of the fortified salt is iron? how much salt do people eat? how much iron is a significant amount".

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    It provides support for the

    Why this is right

    The two claims in the final sentence are the two supporting premises for the conclusion in the 2nd sentence.

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

    88% picked this

  3. It is a claim that

    Wrong Role

    This answer makes the last claim out to be an Opposing Idea, but we knew the last claim was one of the two premises. (also, I have never, in a million LSAT paragraphs, seen an author end her paragraph with an opposing claim as the final idea).

    0% picked this

  4. It qualifies the conclusion of

    Wrong Role

    To qualify a conclusion is to go against the conclusion slightly, and of course a Premise (which is what this last claim is) does not go against the conclusion. Most students don't understand the usage of the verb "to qualify" that we'll see on LSAT. It has nothing to do with "are you qualified for this job?" To qualify a claim is to backpedal from it. To water it down. To narrow its scope. To name some exceptions. Unqualified claim: I love watching basketball Qualified claim: I love watching professional basketball Unqualified claim: I love Fiona Apple's new album Qualified claim: I love Fiona's new album, except for the self-indulgent acapella track at the end If our author were qualifying her conclusion, she'd be mentioning ways or cases in which the new fortified salt was not going to help with anemia caused by iron-deficiency.

    7% picked this

  5. It illustrates a principle that

    Out of Scope: principle

    There isn't really any principle underlying this argument. And the final premise isn't illustrating something. It's just adding a mathematical premise. Not only do people all over the world eat salt, they eat enough salt that the trace amounts of iron we'd be adding to their salt would add up to a significant amount of iron!

    3% 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