Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT149 S4 Q5 Explanation

Safety expert: Tuna is often treated

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

TopicsParadox

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

Safety expert: Tuna is often treated with carbon monoxide so that it will not turn brown as it ages. Treating tuna with carbon monoxide does not make it harmful in any way. Nonetheless, there is a in more people getting sick from eating tuna.

What this question is testing

Paradox

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
5.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope Too Weak3% picked this

    Workers in fish processing plants can be sickened by exposure to carbon monoxide if the appropriate safety procedures are

    We only care about how people are getting sick from eating tuna. These workers aren't getting sick by eating it. Also, answers that say "if measures aren't taken / if appropriate steps aren't followed" are inherently weak because we have no reason to think that appropriate procedures would not be followed.

  2. Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

    Over the last several years, tuna consumption has increased in most parts

    This doesn't have anything to do with the carbon monoxide browning treatment. Independently, more people eating tuna leads to more people getting sick from tuna, but this has no tie-in to the causal connection between the treatment and the uptick in tuna-sick. We'd have to add in an assumption that "the treatment has led to increased tuna consumption in the most parts of the world".

  3. Correct94% picked this

    Tuna that is treated with carbon monoxide provides no visible indication when it has spoiled to the point that

    Why this is right

    This connects the idea of "not browning" to "people get sick eating it". If there were some treatment that would prevent milk from smelling like spoiled milk once it had gone bad, then people would probably keep drinking the milk even once it had gone rotten and would get sick from it more often. This is similarly saying that the browning treatment is making it so that people can't tell when their tuna is rotten sometimes, so they're eating rotten tuna and getting sick.

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

  4. Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

    Treating tuna with carbon monoxide is the only way to keep it from turning brown

    This doesn't explain in any way why people are getting sick from the treated tuna.

  5. Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

    Most consumers strongly prefer tuna that is not brown because they believe that brown tuna

    Just like (D), this offers a reason why the treatment is given, but we need a reason why people are getting sick from eating the treated tuna.

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