Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q14 Food critic: One of the chief

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

Food critic: One of the chief competitors of Chris’s restaurant claims that Chris’s okra supplier cannot reliably supply fresh okra.

Evidence

The best seafood gumbo requires fresh okra.

Conclusion

If this claim were true [Chris’s okra supplier cannot reliably supply fresh okra], then Chris’s customers could not count on getting good seafood gumbo.

Evaluate

The evidence is a conditional statement:

best gumbo → fresh okra

Using the contrapositive, we can conclude that if we don't have fresh okra, we cannot have the best seafood gumbo:

~ fresh okra → ~ best gumbo

The argument tries to make a very similar conclusion, but there is an important term shift. The conclusion of this argument is about getting good gumbo, not the best gumbo:

~ fresh okra → ~ good gumbo

It might be possible to make good seafood gumbo without fresh okra, just not the best seafood gumbo.

14.

The food critic's argument is most subject to criticism because it

  1. relies upon testimony that is

    Ad Hominem

    The conclusion is conditional: if the claim is true, then the consequence follows. The argument does not assume the competitor's claim is true. It evaluates what would happen if the claim were true, which avoids the bias concern.

    14% picked this

  2. illicitly presumes that a dish

    Part vs. Whole

    This would apply if the argument claimed the gumbo is not fresh because the okra is not fresh. But the argument is about quality levels — best versus good — not about transferring a quality from ingredient to dish.

    7% picked this

  3. confuses a necessary condition for

    Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This claims fresh okra is treated as sufficient for good gumbo. But the argument does not conclude that having fresh okra guarantees good gumbo. It concludes that lacking fresh okra prevents good gumbo. The actual flaw is conflating what is necessary for the best gumbo with what is necessary for good gumbo.

    15% picked this

  4. Correct

    takes for granted that a

    Why this is right

    The evidence establishes fresh okra as a necessary ingredient for the best seafood gumbo. The conclusion assumes fresh okra is also necessary for good gumbo. But the best and good are different quality thresholds. Good gumbo might be achievable without fresh okra — you just cannot make the best gumbo. This answer precisely identifies the unjustified assumption that what is necessary for the highest quality is also necessary for adequate quality.

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

    64% picked this

  5. fails to consider the possibility

    No Impact

    Even if Chris occasionally gets fresh okra, the conclusion is about customers being able to count on good gumbo reliably. Occasional availability does not address the reliability concern or the best-versus-good distinction that is the actual flaw.

    1% 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