LSAT 157 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q14

LR Question 14 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Food critic: One of the chief competitors of Chris’s restaurant…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: If the competitor’s claim were true, Chris’s customers could not count on getting good seafood gumbo.

REASONING: The competitor claims that Chris’s okra supplier cannot reliably supply fresh okra. The best seafood gumbo requires fresh okra.

ANALYSIS: The food critic says that the best seafood gumbo requires fresh okra. If Chris can’t get fresh okra, then it logically follows that he can’t make the best seafood gumbo. This argument makes sense then, right?

Wrong. Look at what the critic actually says: “Chris’s customers could not count on getting good seafood gumbo”. You need fresh okra for the best seafood gumbo, but maybe seafood gumbo can still be good even if the okra isn’t fresh! There’s a difference between good gumbo and the best gumbo.

___________

1. The food critic isn’t relying on the truth of the competitor’s claim. The critic acknowledges that the claim may not be true.
2. This isn’t the mistake the food critic makes. An example of this is “Chris doesn’t use fresh okra in his gumbo, so the gumbo is not fresh”.
3. This is close, but it’s not a necessary and sufficient error. An example of this would be “The best gumbo uses fresh okra. Chris uses fresh okra, so his gumbo is good”.
4. CORRECT. The critic doesn’t make a distinction between good gumbo and the best gumbo.
5. It doesn’t matter that sometimes Chris uses fresh okra. The critic already bases their argument on the condition that the okra is not consistently fresh, and the conclusion is that customers can’t count on it always being good.

Recap: The question begins with “Food critic: One of the chief competitors of Chris’s restaurant”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.