LR Question 14 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause diabetes.
REASONING: Refined sugar can make you overweight and being overweight can predispose you to diabetes.
ANALYSIS: This is a pretty good argument. Sugar causes obesity which causes (predisposes) diabetes.
The structure is that one thing can cause another because it causes a third thing. 1st causes 2nd and 2nd causes third. Therefore 1st can help cause third.
___________
- This is a bad argument. Our body is a warm, crowded place whether or not the outside air is cold.
- This is a good argument. There are no direct flights or even a connection. You have to switch airlines in Boston. But this doesn’t talk about one thing causing a third thing.
- This is a bad argument. It does show that over-fertilization can cause lawn disease. It doesn’t show that it is the primary cause.
- CORRECT. This is a good argument and parallel to the stimulus. Inferior motor oil can cause valve deterioration and valve deterioration can cause poor mileage.
- This is a good argument. It clarifies Alexander’s relationship to Plato. But it doesn’t discuss causation.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
hi, could anyone answer this question in the form of diagramming conditional reasoning?
This argument isn’t using conditional reasoning, but rather, causal reasoning. Words and phrases like since, because, and as a result of, are all indicators of casual reasoning. Conditional reasoning is indicated by words and phrases like if, then, whenever, any, etc.
You can diagram or breakdown causal reasoning, but it doesn’t follow the same rules as conditional reasoning (e.g. mistaken reversals don’t apply with causal reasoning.) In this case, I’d just draw out a chain like this one, but I’d always keep in mind that the chain can’t be negated in the same ways as a conditional reasoning chain:
Diet high in refined sugar –> Overweight –> Predisposed to adult onset diabetes
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar can’t cause adult onset diabetes.
Answer Choice (D) follows a similar chain:
Inferior motor oil –> valve deterioration –> poor mileage
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that inferior motor oil cannot cause poor mileage.