LR Question 24 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Principle: If a food product contains ingredients…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle — Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We don’t need to label this food as containing genetically engineered ingredients.
REASONING: Most people wouldn’t care that it contains genetically engineered ingredients. If most people do care, then we should label.
ANALYSIS: This is a classic logical flaw – an incorrect negation of the sufficient condition. We know this statement: Most people care ➞ should label
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t label in all other situations. There could be other reasons to say that a food contains genetically engineered ingredients. Maybe a small percentage of people are deathly allergic to the genetically engineered ingredients in question. How can evidence that we should label in some situations also be evidence that we shouldn’t label in other situations? It doesn’t make any sense.
I’ll give an example to make things clear: If I say that a park is a good place to walk your dog, do I mean that’s the only place you should walk your dog? No. It’s good to wear a jacket when it’s raining. Do I mean you shouldn’t wear one when it’s snowing? Not at all. It’s good to label products if most people would get upset otherwise. Do I mean you should never label products under other circumstances? Of course not.
___________
- So? Consumers of food in general don’t matter; we only care about consumers of specific foods. For those foods, do most consumers care whether certain ingredients were on the label?
- The argument claims that Crackly Crisps shouldn’t be labelled. This answer says the ingredients are safe, which helps the conclusion.
- Which value judgment? The application doesn’t say whether labeling is good or bad.
- This answer choice is about whether people would buy something. The question is about whether we should label something.
- CORRECT. We should label if people would get upset otherwise. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to label if few people will get upset. There could be other reasons to label.
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.
Hello,
I got this question correct but it was because I guessed. I understand that this is a mistaken reversal flaw. I do not see the mistaken reversal in the Application.
Is it a mistake reversal because of the “If” in the application that is indicating a sufficient condition?
If “they” (most consumers of C.C) discovered that “fact” (C.C need not be labeled containing genetically engineered ingredients), then C.C need not be labeled…
Is that it^
Thanks in advanced
It’s a mistaken negation: care —> should label
They say: not care —> no need to label
But there could be other reasons to label. Another example would be: lsat student —> college grad
Then the error would be: not lsat student —> not college grad
But obviously there are college grads who don’t take the lsat.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.