Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q9 Nutritionist: Vitamins synthesized by chemists

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

Nutritionist: Vitamins synthesized by chemists are exactly the same as vitamins that occur naturally in foods.

Conclusion

It's a waste of money to pay extra for brands of vitamin pills that are advertised as made of higher-quality ingredients or more natural ingredients than other brands are.

Evidence

Vitamins synthesized by chemists are exactly the same as vitamins that occur naturally in foods.

Evaluate

The author establishes that it's nonsensical to say that natural vitamins are a higher-quality ingredient than are chemically synthesized vitamins (unnaturally made), since the two are exactly the same.

So, then GIVEN THAT natural vitamins and synthetic vitamins are exactly the same, HOW COULD WE ARGUE THAT it is not a waste of money to sometimes buy a more expensive pill that is advertised as containing higher quality ingredients?

I start thinking to myself,

- maybe one of them has a more appealing flavor - maybe one of them has an easier-to-swallow shape - maybe one of them puts a little trivia quiz on the bottle, which I happen to enjoy and get value out of. - maybe the more expensive one is domestically produced while the cheaper one is imported, and I consider it worth spending more money to support a local economy

Goal

Look for an answer that rules out a reason why someone would pay more for one vitamin brand over another, even though the actual vitamin content is exactly the same.

9.

The nutritionist’s advice is based on which one of the following assumptions?

  1. It is a waste of

    Too Strong

    The author doesn't need to assume that "vitamin pills" in general are a waste of money. She's only saying that paying extra for certain vitamin pills is a waste of money; but she might still think it's a good use of money to buy the cheaper version.

    5% picked this

  2. Brands of vitamin pills made

    Too Strong: always

    Does the author need to assume that 100% of natural vitamin brands cost more than synthesized brands? Of course not. If we negate this, it will say "there is at least one brand of natural vitamins that costs the same or less than synthesized brands". That wouldn't weaken the author's argument. She'd say, "Cool. Feel free to buy that one if you want. Just don't waste your money on the natural-vitamin brands that are more expensive."

    15% picked this

  3. All brands of vitamin pills

    Too Strong: All

    Would it hurt the author's argument if we said that "there is at least one brand of vitamins that is purely natural"? Not at all. She'd be like, "Cool, feel free to buy it if you want, unless it's more expensive, in which case you'd be wasting your money spending extra on it."

    6% picked this

  4. Some producers of vitamin pills

    Out of Scope: false advertising

    This answer is very tempting. It's softly worded and it feels like an Inference we can pull out of the Premises (however, that's not our goal -- we're supposed to be thinking about Assumptions exist in the move from the the Evidence to the Conclusion). Would it hurt the author if we said, "No producers of vitamin pills are guilty of false advertising?" No, not really. First of all, her argument could be read as purely hypothetical -- she hasn't said anything that commits her to the idea that there actually ARE vitamin brands being advertised as "higher quality / more natural". I could make an argument that says, "You should NOT accept anyone's offer to give you a private ride to the moon" and it could be purely hypothetical. That argument doesn't assume that some people ARE offering private rides to the moon. Furthermore, while the author would say it's false to advertise that one vitamin pill contains higher-quality vitamins, she wouldn't say it's false to say that one vitamin pill has more natural ingredients. In a world where vitamin producers advertised their more expensive vitamins as having "more natural ingredients", our author could say, "They're not false advertising. It does have more natural ingredients. But there's no reason to pay extra money for natural ingredients since natural vitamins and synthesized vitamins are exactly the same."

    7% picked this

  5. Correct

    There is no nonvitamin ingredient

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, we get "there is some nonvitamin ingredient in vitamin pills whose quality makes one brand worth more money than another brand." Does that weaken? For sure. That gives us a way to say that it wouldn't necessarily be a waste of money to buy a more expensive vitamin. Maybe the Vitamin C and Vitamin E in each of these pills is exactly the same, but one pill uses gelatin derived from animal stomachs to make their gummy vitamins whereas this other, more expensive pill uses a more humane nonvitamin ingredient to create its gummy. Or maybe they're both mango flavored, but one of them uses a nasty artificial mango flavor that gives the vitamin a weird aftertaste while the other one uses a delicious natural mango flavor that makes the vitamin more palatable.

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

    68% 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