Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT6 S3 Q4 Explanation

In an attempt to counter

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

TopicsWeaken

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

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 than the active ingredient in mouthwash.”

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
4.

Which one of the following, if true, indicates a weakness in the

Answer choices

  1. No Impact2% picked this

    The ounce-for-ounce toxicity of the active ingredient in mouthwash is less than that of most products meant for external use by humans, such

    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.

  2. Correct94% picked this

    The quantity of toxins humans ingest by consuming plants treated with the pesticide is, on average, much higher than the quantity of

    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.

  3. Irrelevant Quality1% picked this

    The container in which the pesticide is packaged clearly identifies the toxic ingredients and carries warnings about their

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

  4. Strengthens (if anything)2% picked this

    On average, the toxins present in the pesticide take longer than the toxins present in mouthwash to reach harmful

    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.

  5. No Impact0% picked this

    Since the government began to regulate the pesticide industry over ten years ago, there has been a growing awareness of the dangers

    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.

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