QUESTION TYPE: Paradox
PARADOX: Those who reduced red meat the most eat more fat than those who didn’t reduce.
ANALYSIS: It could be that people replaced red meat with other fatty foods.
Or maybe they ate more fat in the first place, and that’s why they decided to reduce red meat consumption. So they still eat more fat, but less so than they used to.
- It doesn’t matter how many people reduced their red meat consumption. The stimulus talked about the two groups on average. Total numbers are irrelevant for averages: it doesn’t matter if two million reduced, or twenty million.
- The stimulus said that people reduced by one half in order to reduce fat. If they reduced even further because of high prices, that just adds to confusion. Further reduction is a second reason we would expect their fat consumption to be lower.
- This just shows that the two groups are equal in terms of fat in other foods. So if one group reduced red meat, we would expect that group’s fat consumption to be lower.
- CORRECT. This shows that people replaced red meat with fattier foods. So no wonder they eat more fat.
- This doesn’t explain why people that stopped eating red meat are eating more fat. D is a better answer because it specifies that people replaced red meat with fattier food.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly