LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 132 › Logical Reasoning › Question 23

LSAT 132 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LSAT Preptest 132 explanations

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Consumer advocate: TMD, a pesticide used on peaches…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

CONCLUSION: TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.

REASONING: Some of the population eats far more peaches and thus far more TMD than the national average. We have no research on consumption of this level of TMD.

ANALYSIS: The advocate has shown that we don’t know if TMD is harmful to certain segments of the population. So we need a principle that says we shouldn’t do something unless we know it’s safe. Or that we shouldn’t do something that may harm a segment of the population.

___________

  1. This sounds good, but look at what it’s concluding: be cautious in assessing a pesticide’s risk. That’s not what the advocate is recommending. She says we shouldn’t use TMD on peaches. That’s a different recommendation.
  2. Nonsense. The sufficient condition here is knowing that a majority of the population is likely to ingest TMD. But the stimulus said a majority of the population doesn’t eat peaches.
    And the advocate didn’t say that TMD use is likely unacceptable. She said it is unacceptable.
  3. CORRECT. You can draw this statement and its contrapositive:
    Acceptable ➞ intended purpose AND shown no harm
    Shown no harm OR intended purpose ➞ acceptable
    The advocate says we haven’t shown there is no harm to children. The contrapositive above shows that lets us conclude “not acceptable”.
  4. The stimulus said that average doses are low and average doses have been proven to be safe. So this answer doesn’t tell us we have any special obligation to children. Besides, children were just an example. The main point was that some people eat more peaches than average. We should protect all of them, not just children.
  5. The argument mentioned one “measure to protect the population from harm”: restricting pesticides. The stimulus never said this leads to a greater harm.

Recap: The question begins with “Consumer advocate: TMD, a pesticide”. It is a Principle question. To practice more Principle questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.

Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 132
Next Question

More Resources for Principle Questions

  • Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
  • Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
Quick Jump PT Section Que

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Comments

  1. Aden says Member

    April 27, 2021 at 8:48 pm

    I see why C is correct for the reason satted above, but i don’t understand what the “inteded purpose” has to do with anything. Please elaborate.

    Reply
    • Graeme Blake says Founder

      January 25, 2024 at 12:49 pm

      Intended purpose is just thrown in for confusion. We only need to fail one of the two necessary conditions to say “not acceptable”. C would have been right even if it had left off intended purpose. And adding a second (irrelevant) necessary condition doesn’t make an answer wrong.

      Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms