LSAT 118 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q7

LR Question 7 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: An artificial hormone has recently been developed that …

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Milk labels shouldn’t be required to provide info about the artificial substances they use.

REASONING: If we required this, we’d also have to list things like every synthetic fertilizer used to grow the cows’ food and every fungicide used to preserve that food.

ANALYSIS: The proposal is: Tell consumers what artificial substances were used in producing milk.

The author doesn’t directly argue that consumers don’t need the information.

Instead, the author asks us to imagine what would happen if we applied the proposal consistently.

The reasoning is basically:

• If we’re going to list artificial substances used in milk production, why stop at the hormone?
• We’d also have to list fertilizers, fungicides, and countless other substances.
• That would be ridiculous.
• Therefore the proposal shouldn’t be adopted.

So the author is attacking the proposal by extending it to what they see as an absurd extreme.

___________

1. The author never proposes an alternative labeling system. The argument is entirely negative: don’t do this.
2. CORRECT. The author raises the consequences of implementing the proposal and suggests it would be crazy. Basically: imagine if we listed EVERYTHING?!?
3. The author never offers an alternative approach that would better achieve consumer-information goals. No alternative is proposed.
4. The examples (fertilizers and fungicides) are not given as analogies. The point isn’t: “This can’t be done.” The point is: “This leads to a crazy level of disclosure.”
5. There’s no attacking motives of the lawmakers. Nothing suggests they are self-interested, dishonest, or biased. The argument attacks the proposal, not the people proposing it.