Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S1 · Q22 Food co-ops are a type of consumer

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

Food co-ops are a type of consumer cooperative.

Conclusion (therefore)

It's more economical to shop at a food co-op than at a supermarket.

Evidence

Food co-ops are a type of consumer cooperative. Consumer cooperatives offer the same products as other stores, usually more cheaply.

Evaluate

Given that ... food co-ops are a type of CC, and CC's usually offer the same products as other stores but more cheaply.

How could we still argue that ... it is not more economical to shop at a food co-op than a supermarket?

Well, it seems possible that food co-ops could be an exception to the general rule that CC's are usually more cheap than their alternative.

(It helps me that any time I've gone to a food co-op, I've felt like the prices were a little higher than my local grocery store).

Goal

We seem to want something like like P1: X is a type of A. P2: A's are usually more B than ~A's. C: X will be more B than [example of ~A].

In a more conversational sense, we're objecting that, .

22.

Which one of the following is most appropriate as an analogy demonstrating that the reasoning in the argument above is flawed?

By that line of reasoning,
Weak Conclusion/Evidence Match
The fact that this argument only has one premise whereas the original argument had two is a quick reason to keep moving on. The flaw here is about usage rates, meaning our objection would be like, "Even though sports cars use more gas per mile, people might drive their sports cars way less than other cars and thus not use much more gas overall." It would be as if the original were, "Food co-ops offer a cheaper price than other stores for more products. Thus, people who shop at food co-ops spend way less money on groceries than people who don't."
11% picked this
By that line of reasoning,
Wrong Flaw
Our objection to this would be about weighing the upsides / downsides of buying fresh vs. frozen. We would try to counteract the two advantages of frozen (cost less, don't spoil as quickly) with disadvantages (taste worse, don't have the same vitamin content). Our original objection had nothing to do with weighing pros and cons. It was about questioning whether food co-ops really had the trait that is usually the case in their broader category of consumer cooperatives.
19% picked this
Correct
By that line of reasoning,
Why this is right
This fits our original structure well, and in vulnerable to a similar objection. P1: X is a type of A. Bikes are a type of private transportation. P2: A's are usually more B than ~A's. Private transportation is usually more polluting than non-private. C: X will be more B than [example of ~A]. Bikes are more polluting than buses. We definitely know from common sense that bikes do not pollute more than buses (bikes don't have any exhaust, so how could they pollute at all). Bikes might be an exception within the broader category of private transportation.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
54% picked this
By that line of reasoning,
Bad Evidence Match Topic Trap
The fact that this is also about shopping at health food stores is close enough in topic to the original (shopping at a food co-op vs. a supermarket) that we should be deeply suspicious. The evidence here doesn't involve the "X is a type of broader category A", so there's no way it will be vulnerable to the same objection of, "What if X happens to be an exception within its category?" Our objection here would be something like, "Just because healthful food is better-tasting than ever doesn't mean it's at least as good-tasting as unhealthful food". Just because something is going up doesn't yet mean it's reached the level of something else.
5% picked this
By that line of reasoning,
Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match
As soon as we see the conclusion is saying "best", rather than a comparative "more / less", we should be skeptical. The evidence lacks the crucial "X is a member of broader category A" dimension that the original argument had.
11% 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