LSAT 134 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q7

LR Question 7 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Recently, a report commissioned by a confectioners…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The vast majority of foods will eventually be reported to be good for you.

REASONING: Two foods have been reported to be good for you.

ANALYSIS: Another terribly silly argument. Two examples can never prove a general claim. It’s doubtful, for example that “poison death berries” or “Oreos” will ever be reported to be healthy. The argument makes a claim about almost all food, so it needs evidence about all food.

___________

1. It’s true that the chocolate makers are a biased source. But the argument only concluded that food will be reported as healthful. So biased reports are fine. The author didn’t claim that chocolate actually is healthy.
2. The argument uses specific examples to prove a general rule. This answer choice gets things backwards.
3. CORRECT. It’s like saying “I saw two redheads, so most people must have red hair”.
4. It isn’t necessary that all research results be reported. The author only needs one positive result to be reported for each food.
5. The author didn’t say there would be no reports that food was unhealthy. He just argued that there would be reports that most food was healthy, as well. Reports can contradict each other.