LSAT 135 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Dietitian: Many diet-conscious consumers are excited about …

QUESTION TYPE: Identify the Conclusion

ANALYSIS: The structure is pretty straightforward here.

The first sentence is just context. It tells us that consumers are excited about fake fat.

Then comes the author’s real opinion. “However” is a pretty common conclusion indicator. Usually, it comes at the beginning of the sentence and what follows is the conclusion. Here, they placed it at the end of the sentence to make it a bit more tricky. But it’s still the author’s main takeaway.

They think that consumers who expect this fake fat to help them lose weight will be disappointed.

Everything after that explains why they’ll be disappointed.

The reasoning/evidence is that people who eat foods containing fake fat tend to consume at least as many extra calories as they saved.

So, the conclusion and reasoning can be summarized like this:

1. Conclusion: Fake fat probably won’t help people lose weight.
2. Reasoning: Research shows they’re probably still going to eat at least as many extra calories as they saved.

___________

1. This goes beyond the stimulus. The research only tells us that people eating fake-fat foods tend to compensate for the calories they save. It doesn’t establish a universal rule that everyone always eats a fixed number of calories regardless of diet. So this is just an overgeneralization of the reasoning.
2. The argument is about weight loss, not nutrition. Whether fake fat is healthier or more nutritious is never discussed.
3. Way too strong. The author argues fake fat probably doesn’t help people lose weight. They don’t argue that fake fat actually makes obesity worse than ordinary foods.
4. CORRECT. This paraphrases the second sentence, which is the conclusion.
5. The stimulus says fake fat is designed to give food the flavor and consistency of fatty foods. But whether consumers can actually distinguish it by taste is never discussed and plays no role in the argument.