Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT153 S3 Q7 Explanation

Advertisement: Honey Oat Puffs cereal

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

TopicsFlaw

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: Honey Oat Puffs cereal is made with whole-grain oats. Health experts agree that whole-grain oats are among the most healthful foods, far more healthful than most of the foods in a typical diet. So most if they ate Honey Oat Puffs for breakfast.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that 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
7.

The reasoning in the advertisementʼs argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds

Answer choices

  1. Correct85% picked this

    infers that a food will have a certain property simply because one of the food?s

    Why this is right

    The argument infers that Honey Oat Puffs will have a certain property (being healthful) because one ingredient (whole-grain oats) is healthful.

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

  2. Necessary vs. Sufficient8% picked this

    treats a property that is sufficient to make a food healthful as a property that a food must have

    This describes a conditional logic flaw that does not appear in this argument. The evidence doesn't explicitly describe any property that is sufficient to make a food healthful. And the argument doesn't conclude that any "property" is necessary for a food to be healthful. The argument does assume that one healthful ingredient is sufficient to make the entire cereal healthful, but that's not what this answer is describing.

  3. Equivocation1% picked this

    confuses two distinct meanings of the

    There's no indication that the word "healthful" is intended to mean two different things. The word is used the same way throughout the argument.

  4. Out of Scope: tends to be3% picked this

    concludes that a food contributes to health simply because that food tends to be part of the

    Neither the evidence nor the conclusion describes anything that already "tends to be" part of the diets of healthy people. This answer would be more correct if it stated that the argument "concludes that a food would make people's diets more healthful simply because one ingredient contributes to health."

  5. Circular Reasoning2% picked this

    contains a premise that presupposes the truth of

    Neither of the premises state or presuppose that most people would have more healthful diets if they ate Honey Oat Puffs for breakfast.

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