Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q10 Cafeteria patron: The apples sold

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

Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy.

Conclusion

The cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, endangering its patrons.

Evidence

The apples are greasy, which means that they weren't washed since being delivered.

Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides and is dangerous until it is washed.

Evaluate

The evidence has definitely raised the possibility that we should be worried about these apples. Since they're greasy, they haven't been washed.

If they were sprayed with pesticides, then leaving them unwashed would indeed be selling pesticide-covered fruit.

But we don't know for a fact they were sprayed with pesticides. We only know that most fruit is sprayed.

So the author isn't allowed to be sure of himself in the conclusion. He can say "the cafeteria may be selling pesticide-covered fruit", but the evidence doesn't justify being sure of that.

Goal

Our objection is that,

This argument is assuming "these apples were sprayed with pesticides".

10.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Correct

    The apples that the cafeteria

    Why this is right

    Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption, and we see an answer choice that is ruling out an idea with the word "not", we should be very receptive (tons of correct answers take that form, because they're ruling out an objection). "Not" claims are easy to negate. If we negate this one, does it turn into an objection: the apples are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria. Yes, that would be a huge objection. The author is concluding that these apples are covered in pesticides, but if the apples have already been thoroughly washed then they his conclusion is wrong; they aren't covered in pesticides.

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

    61% picked this

  2. Most pesticides that are sprayed

    Too Strong: most

    The author doesn't need to assume that the grease and the pesticides are causally connected. He is only looking at the grease as an indicator that the apples haven't been washed. Furthermore, the word "most" is wrong 99% of the time we see it in Necessary Assumption. Negating a "most" claim means you take the claim from saying "at least 51%" to "at most 49%". Would it hurt this argument to say, "at most 49% of pesticides leave a greasy residue"? No. If the negation doesn't weaken, it wasn't a required idea.

    30% picked this

  3. Many of the cafeteria’s patrons

    Out of Scope: patrons' awareness

    The awareness of patrons is completely out of scope. We're only trying to assess whether these apples are / aren't covered in pesticides. That could be true whether people are aware of it or oblivious to it.

    3% picked this

  4. Only pesticides that leave a

    Too Strong: only Unsupported Relationship

    This has strong wording to make us nervous: only. Since that's conditional strength, we can analyze this answer by thinking of the conditional rule it describes and asking ourselves, "Did the author clearly make this move in his logic?" "Only" = necessary (right side) indicator. Pesticide can be → leaves a greasy washed off residue No, the author definitely didn't establish in the premise that "this pesticide can be washed off" and then conclude "therefore, this will leave a greasy residue". Does this negation hurt the argument? "at least one pesticide that doesn't leave a greasy residue can be washed off" Not at all. The author was never thinking that a pesticide couldn't be washed off, just that it hadn't been washed off.

    2% picked this

  5. Fruits other than apples also

    Out of Scope: other than apples

    We've only heard that apples are greasy. The author doesn't need to assume that anything else was greasy. His argument is about pesticides, not grease. (Although he doesn't even need to assume that any other fruit has pesticides, either)

    4% 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