LSAT 104 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Frankie: If jelly makers were given incentives to make a certain…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The plan won’t help cloudberry gatherers.

REASONING: If you increase demand for cloudberry jellies, the gatherers won’t be able to produce enough. So farmers will start growing cloudberries, and the gatherers will stay poor.

The same thing happened with Cacao.

ANALYSIS: This argument uses an analogous situation (Cacao) to show that increased demand for cloudberries probably won’t help cloudberry gatherers.

___________

1. Anna suggests that Frankie’s proposal might even hurt cloudberry gatherers. Farmers would take over.
2. Frankie didn’t give any evidence: her conclusion is her entire argument. So there was nothing for Anna to reinterpret.
3. CORRECT. Anna gives us the example of Cacao. Increased demand didn’t help Cacao gatherers, so it won’t help cloudberry gatherers, either.
4. Anna never gave a general theory. She just gave one single example: Cacao. A general theory has to talk about all foods, all gatherers, etc.
5. Huh? Anna did not say that chocolate and cloudberry jelly have similar uses. They’re completely different products, with the possible exception of Nutella (yum).

Recap: The question begins with “Frankie: If jelly makers were given incentives to make a certain”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Method of Reasoning questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.