Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT149 S3 Q1 Explanation

Advertisement: Most nutritionists recommend

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Advertisement: Most nutritionists recommend eating fish twice a week. Eating tilapia fillets is a perfect choice for those who want the benefits of eating fish but do not care for the taste of fish. taste that many people find objectionable.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
1.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the

Answer choices

  1. No Impact Irrelevant Causality0% picked this

    Eating more than the recommended amount of fish can cause toxins that are present in high concentrations in many varieties of fish

    Nothing in the argument suggests or involves eating more than the recommended amount of fish, so this answer choice about doing that isn't relevant. This answer choice seems to be casting doubt on the whole idea of eating fish, but that's not what the question is asking us to do.

  2. Opposite (if anything) Irrelevant Distinction0% picked this

    Tilapia are invasive species that crowd out native species of fish in lakes

    We could argue that this strengthens the conclusion by providing another reason to eat tilapia. Let's chow down on invasive species and get rid of them! I'll have the tilapia with a side of braised kudzu. But our job in this question is to weaken the argument. And in a broader sense, this answer choice ignores the fact that the argument is based on taste and benefits of eating tilapia. Tilapia being invasive is actually not relevant to the reasoning in this argument.

  3. Correct97% picked this

    Tilapia fillets contain little of the beneficial fish oils that are the main reason nutritionists

    Why this is right

    This answer suggests that people who want the benefits of eating fish won't get those benefits by eating tilapia.

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

  4. Opposite (if anything)2% picked this

    Most people who do not care for the taste of fish eat less fish than is

    This answer seems to provide another reason to eat tilapia. But that would strengthen the argument, if anything.

  5. Opposite (if anything)0% picked this

    People who rarely or never eat fish usually dislike any food with a

    Like other incorrect answers, this would seem to strengthen the argument. This answer suggests that people who rarely or never eat fish might be willing to try tilapia. But we're supposed to choose an answer that weakens the argument, not one that strengthens it.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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