A new process enables

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   It is the conclusion of the

   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%
2. B

   Correct88% picked this

   It provides support for the conclusion of

   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%
3. C

   Wrong Role0% picked this

   It is a claim that the argument is

   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%
4. D

   Wrong Role7% picked this

   It qualifies the conclusion of the

   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%
5. E

   Out of Scope: principle3% picked this

   It illustrates a principle that underlies

   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%