Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S3 · Q4 In an attempt to counter

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

In an attempt to counter complaints that a certain pesticide is potentially hazardous to humans if absorbed into edible plants, the pesticide manufacturer has advertised that “ounce for ounce, the active ingredient in this pesticide is less toxic than the active ingredient in mouthwash.”

Conclusion (implied)

The pesticide isn't hazardous to humans if absorbed into edible plants.

Evidence

Ounce for ounce, the active ingredient in this pesticide is less toxic than the active ingredient in mouthwash.

Evaluate

We know that the pesticide's active ingredient is less toxic than the active ingredient in mouthwash.

However, this doesn't inherently mean using the pesticide is safe. Maybe mouthwash is hazardous to humans. Maybe the pesticide has many more ounces of that toxic ingredient than mouthwash does. Maybe a human would swallow much more of the pesticide by eating affected plants than a human would ever swallow mouthwash.

Goal

We need an answer that helps us argue that even though the pesticide's active ingredient is less toxic mouthwash's, the pesticide still isn't safe and could be bad for humans if they ate it.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, indicates a weakness in the manufacturer’s argument?

  1. The ounce-for-ounce toxicity of the

    No Impact

    Comparing the toxicity of mouthwash to other external use products (like nail polish) doesn't impact the comparison between the pesticide and mouthwash. It doesn't address potential dangers from the pesticide itself.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    The quantity of toxins humans

    Why this is right

    This answer choice highlights a key weakness in the manufacturer's argument. It reveals that even if the pesticide is less toxic ounce for ounce, humans ingest a higher quantity of the pesticide's toxins than they do of mouthwash's toxins. Thus, the overall exposure and potential harm could still be greater, despite the per-ounce comparison.

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

    93% picked this

  3. The container in which the

    Irrelevant Quality

    Warnings on the pesticide package don't directly challenge the comparison with mouthwash. The existence of warnings is expected for any potentially hazardous product.

    1% picked this

  4. On average, the toxins present

    Strengthens (if anything)

    This also points out a distinction between the pesticide and mouthwash, but this makes mouthwash sound scarier, so if anything it helps the author's argument.

    3% picked this

  5. Since the government began to

    No Impact

    Awareness of pesticide dangers does not address the comparison between the specific pesticide and mouthwash. It doesn't weaken the specific comparison made about toxicity.

    0% picked this

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