Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S1 · Q6 A recent taste test reveals

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

A recent taste test reveals that most people like low-fat chocolate ice cream as much as its full-fat counterpart.

Conclusion

The complexity of chocolate probably masks any difference in taste due to the lack of fat.

Evidence

In a taste test, most people liked low-fat chocolate ice cream as much as full fat chocolate ice cream, whereas previous tests found that people tended to dislike low-fat vanilla ice cream, saying it tasted harsh.

Chocolate is a very complex flavor, requiring around 500 distinct chemical compounds.

Evaluate

Since we're trying to explain the meaning behind a Curious Comparison from two study results, we can use our Curious Fact / Explanation mindset.

Curious Fact ... how come people like low-fat chocolate ice cream, but think low-fat vanilla ice cream has a harsh taste?

Author's Explanation ... the complexity of chocolate masks the different taste of low-fat chocolate ice cream.

The two pressure points with these types of arguments are - Alternate Explanations for the curious fact - the plausibility of the Author's Explanation

How else could we explain the difference in reactions to the low-fat chocolate vs. the low-fat vanilla? - Maybe the low-fat chocolate was done by a very boutique ice cream maker (Ben & Jerry's) while the low-fat vanilla was done by Rite-Aid. - Maybe the vanilla taste test warned them in advance that they were going to taste something low-fat, whereas the chocolate test just let them try the samples first without warning them to expect something "worse".

How plausible is the Author's Explanation? - well, we need to know that vanilla is not as complex a flavor (complexity can't be the Causal Difference-Maker here if it's not actually a difference) - we could appeal to other examples in which people preferred the healthier version of a complex flavor to the healthier version of a simpler flavor

Goal

Find an answer that rules out an alternate explanation for the difference reactions to low-fat chocolate vs. vanilla, or an answer that increases the plausibility of the causal explanation the author is selling, that "complexity is the causal difference-maker".

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Most people prefer full-fat chocolate
Weakens, if anything
This answer is about full-fat ice cream, so it's not really helping us to investigate whether complexity of flavor is an effective way to mask the changed taste of a low-fat alternative. If anything, this might sound like an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact: "they didn't prefer low-fat chocolate more than low-fat vanilla because the complexity masked the fat-less flavor; they preferred it because people just love chocolate so much that they'll be happy with any version of it."
2% picked this
The subjects of the previous
Weaker than Correct Answer
This does strengthen somewhat, because it rules out the alternative explanation that people disliked the low-fat vanilla because they were warned in advance that it was low-fat (and so they mentally prepared themselves to hate it .... much in the same way if you told someone the glass of wine you poured came from a $100 bottle, they would prime their palate to love it). But if you're trying to say, "The killer was Johnny", it has less strengthening effect to rule out an alternate explanation ("the killer wasn't Tanya") than it does to increase the plausibility of your explanation ("Johnny had a motive and a murder weapon"). Similarly, this answer has less impact than an answer that positively nudges us in favor of believing the complexity storyline.
10% picked this
The more distinct compounds required
Unclear Impact
Which has more distinct compounds: vanilla or chocolate? We don't know. We were never told. So we have no way to know the potential impact of this answer on the conversation.
18% picked this
Correct
Vanilla is known to be
Why this is right
This is establishing an assumption that is heavily insinuated but never said: chocolate is a more complex flavor than vanilla. These Assumes a Difference arguments are annoying in the sense that the assumption is so obvious that it's hard to make your brain realize it was an assumption. For example, "Tony is debating between buying a Prius and a Leaf. He should buy the Prius, since it has a bluetooth stereo." What's being assumed? (among other things), the Leaf does not have a bluetooth stereo. On Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox (question stems asking, "Which answer, if it's true, does the most ..."), we love to see strong wording in our answer, so significantly less complex is very lovable.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
69% picked this
Most people are aware of
No Impact
It doesn't really make a difference to this argument whether most people are aware or unaware of the chemical complexity. And if we're told they are aware of the chemical complexity, does that mean they like it? Does that mean that the complexity is effective at disguising the low-fat aftertaste? We were never told that people like complexity. We can't really argue, "when they try low-fat chocolate, most of them are aware how chemically complex chocolate is ..... and that's why they don't mind the low-fat version?"
1% 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