LSAT 128 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Environmentalist: The United Kingdom recently instituted …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Other countries should not require labeling of genetically altered foods.

REASONING: If we lose demand for genetically altered foods, which are often altered to be pest-resistant, the new alternatives would be dangerous and pesticide intensive.

ANALYSIS: This argument is making a bunch of premises about something that happened in the UK, and using these to conclude that other countries shouldn’t do the same as the UK did. For this to hold, it hinges on the assumption that food producers in other countries will actually react the same way as those in the UK.

The negation of this assumption is that food producers in other countries will not react the same way as the UK. The argument then falls apart. Why should we conclude anything about other countries based on the UK if they won’t react the same way?

So the necessary assumption has to establish that the same thing is bound to happen in other countries.

___________

1. This is tempting. The negation says people won’t take these labels as warnings, so you might be wondering why any of the rest should follow. But note that the reasoning in the argument is based on the producers’ fear that the customers would do so. If the reasoning is based on their fear, it’s not dependent on whether consumers actually do so.
   Negation: In general, people don’t interpret labels stating that some foods are genetically altered as warnings.
2. This is irrelevant because the argument is about how labeling affects consumer demand, not how common genetically altered foods were before the law changed.
   Negation: Before the new law, very few foods sold in the UK contained genetically altered ingredients.
3. CORRECT. The argument depends on the assumption that other countries will react the same way as the UK. If this were not true, we have no reason to conclude what other countries would do based on what happened in the UK.
   Negation: The reactions of food producers in other countries to such laws are unlikely to be similar to the reactions of food producers in the UK.
4. This is too broad. The argument isn’t about all warning labels, but specifically about labels on genetically altered foods. Also, the labels aren’t even technically warnings (just feared to be interpreted as such), so this doesn’t capture the nuances.
   Negation: Warning labels on food products have not proven to be effective in reducing consumption of those products.
5. This is too vague. It doesn’t specify that labeling genetically altered foods specifically leads to a decline in demand for them. The negation might make it less convincing, but it doesn’t necessarily destroy it.
   Negation: Countries that institute new food labeling regulations do not experience a change in consumer eating habits.