LR Question 9 Explanation
QUESTION TYPE: Identify The Conclusion
CONCLUSION: Taxing junk food would help public health.
REASONING: Junk food causes problems. Taxing junk food would encourage people to eat other food.
ANALYSIS: The doctor is arguing that taxing junk food would help public health. It’s the first sentence.
The rest of the argument gives reasons that taxing junk food would improve public health.
___________
- CORRECT. This is the first sentence. The first sentence is often the conclusion.
- This is evidence that supports the first sentence.
- This is evidence that supports the first sentence.
- This isn’t even directly in the argument. It’s a restatement of answer C.
- The doctor doesn’t say if junk food should be taxed. He just said that taxing it would improve public health. There might be other reasons not to tax it.
Need help with LR? → Sign up here
Try the LSAT Hacks CourseGraeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I run LSAT Hacks, and I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I teach strategies that let you get questions right, and quickly. I’ve been teaching for over nine years, and have seen everything from score plateaus to test anxiety. I’ve got courses and mastery seminars for people at all levels, and have worked with some of the best LSAT companies around.
---------
* Photos and stuff: Instagram
* Airbnb travel credit: Want to support this site? Sign up for Airbnb and we’ll both get a travel credit (you get $45!) Airbnb is what I use when I travel for LSAT business, it’s great. Sign up here: www.airbnb.ca/c/gblake2
Leave a Reply