Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S3 · Q15 Some food historians conclude that

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

Some food historians conclude that recipes compiled by an ancient Roman named Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy Romans prepared and spiced their food.

Conclusion

It's hasty logic to conclude that the recipes compiled by Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy Romans prepared / spiced food.

Evidence

We don't have other recipes from the same time period to compare these to, and Apicius may have been a weirdo chef, who was atypical from the rest (just as many famous modern chefs are).

Evaluate

The author is saying that it's hasty to use Apicius's recipes as a reliable indicator because we don't know whether he's a representative (typical) chef from then or not.

If we were trying to characterize the author's two pieces of evidence, it might sound something like this: - "few other recipes have survived" (the author indicates a sample might not be reliable because it can't be cross-referenced with other samples)

- (the author appeals to an analogy / a modern comparison)

Goal

Just find an answer choice that descriptively matches the argument.

15.

The argument does which one of the following?

  1. It rejects a view held

    Too Strong: solely

    When an answer says "solely / merely" on the grounds that, it means that there was only one premise. This author has two premises (few other surviving recipes / A might have been an atypical chef like some famous modern ones). Seeing two premise indicators, "since" and "after all", also can tell us we had more than one premise. F.A.B.S. = the four main premise indicators for, after all, because, since

    24% picked this

  2. It offers support for a

    Contradicted

    This is not offering support for a view held by some food historians. Our author is rebutting their view, and the modern analogue is supporting her rebuttal of a view held by some food historians.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    It takes issue with the

    Why this is right

    Does it take issue with the view of some food historians? Yes, this conclusion is far too hasty. Does she provide a modern analogue that undercuts their view? Yes, the recipes of Apicius may have been highly atypical (undercuts their view) just like the recipes of many notable modern chefs (a modern analogue)

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

    72% picked this

  4. It uses a conclusion drawn

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Is the conclusion about a modern analogue? No the conclusion is saying "it's hasty to think that the recipes from ancient Roman Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy ancient Romans prepped their food." And our author doesn't use the food historians' conclusion as the basis for her own conclusion. She uses two premises to undermine the food historians' conclusion.

    1% picked this

  5. It tries to bolster a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Is the conclusion claiming a similarity between historical times and modern times? Nope, it's saying that the conclusion drawn by food historians about ancient Rome is a dubious one.

    2% 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