Logical Reasoning

PT9 · S4 · Q22 When butterfat was considered nutritious

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

When butterfat was considered nutritious and healthful, a law was enacted requiring that manufacturers use the term “imitation butter” to indicate butter whose butterfat content had been diminished through the addition of water.

Conclusion

Manufacturers should be allowed to call reduced-butterfat butter "lite butter" instead of "imitation butter" to encourage lower butterfat consumption.

Evidence

The high cholesterol content of butterfat makes it harmful to human health.

The term "imitation" deters people from buying reduced-butterfat butter.

Evaluate

This argument has elements of a Plan/Goal structure.

PLAN: allow manufacturers to use the term "lite butter" instead of "imitation butter" GOAL: lower butterfat consumption

To question the reasoning, we want to think about how following this Plan could fail to achieve the Goal. Would people not switch to the lower fat, even with the name change? Would their behavior change in some other way that would increase butterfat consumption?

Goal

Let's find an answer where the change of name doesn't lead to increased consumption of reduced-butterfat butter.

22.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

  1. The manufacturers who prefer to

    No Impact

    This answer talks about the motivations of manufacturers who came up with the Plan, which tells us nothing about whether the Plan would achieve its intended Goal.

    5% picked this

  2. The manufacturers who wish to

    Opposite (if anything)

    Changing the water content in "lite butter" so that it's more water / less butterfat, would work in favor of the Goal of reducing butterfat, if anything.

    10% picked this

  3. Some individuals who need to

    No Impact

    This very weak idea doesn't counter the fact that many people ARE deterred by the name "imitation". The Plan is hoping to get those people to switch to products with lower butterfat. It doesn't care about the people who are already eating low butterfat products.

    19% picked this

  4. Cholesterol is only one of

    No Impact

    This mentions that cholesterol is one of many factors in health problems, but tells us nothing about whether changing the name from 'imitation' to 'lite' would get people to switch to the lower butterfat option.

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    Most people deterred from eating

    Why this is right

    This answer suggests that those deterred by "imitation butter" are currently eating something that's low in butterfat. So if we changed the name of this product and that lured people to this product, they would actually be INCREASING their butterfat intake, which would go against the Goal. This gives us a way to argue that following the plan would not achieve the goal.

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

    64% 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