Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S4 · Q16 It is not reasonable to search

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

It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods— those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals—as the only natural foods.

Conclusion

It is unreasonable to treat "organic" foods (those grown without synthetic chemicals) as the only natural foods.

Evidence

Plants produce the same compounds regardless of whether the input molecules came from synthetic chemicals or not. All plant compounds are part of nature, so all are equally natural.

Evaluate

The author moves from "organic" (the standard usage: grown without synthetic chemicals) to "natural" by way of redefining "natural" as Under that broad definition, foods grown with synthetic chemicals also qualify — but only because the author has stretched "natural" to mean something different from how it's commonly used in this context. The author's redefinition is favorable to the author's own position.

Goal

Find an answer that names the move of redefining a term in a way that helps the author's argument.

16.

The argument proceeds by

  1. Correct

    redefining a term in a

    Why this is right

    This describes the move exactly. The author redefines "natural" — broadening it from "grown without synthetic chemicals" (the sense relevant to the position being rejected) to "any compound made by a plant." The broader definition makes the conclusion follow easily, since under the new definition essentially all food is "natural." That's a redefinition favorable to the argument.

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

    68% picked this

  2. giving a reason why a

    Bad Description

    The argument doesn't recommend any action and doesn't argue that some action is beneficial. It pushes back against a labeling distinction (organic = natural). There's no "do this because it would help" structure here.

    2% picked this

  3. appealing to the authority of

    Bad Description

    The argument leans on a fact about plant chemistry but doesn't cite scientific authorities or methods as a way to bolster the claim. It just makes the chemical claim directly. This isn't an "experts say so" appeal.

    6% picked this

  4. showing that a necessary condition

    Bad Description

    The author doesn't argue that some food fails to satisfy a necessary condition for being "organic." The author actually accepts the standard usage of "organic" and instead works on the term natural by widening its definition. Wrong term, wrong move.

    7% picked this

  5. reinterpreting evidence presented as supporting

    Bad Description

    The argument doesn't take evidence offered for the rejected position and reinterpret it. It introduces its own facts (plants produce the same compounds regardless of input) and redefines a key term ("natural"). Reinterpretation of opposing evidence isn't what's happening.

    17% 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