LSAT 142 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Ming: Since trans fat is particularly unhealthy…

QUESTION TYPE: Misinterpretation

ARGUMENTS: Ming says it’s good that trans fats have generally been removed from cookies. Trans fats aren’t healthy.

Carol doesn’t understand Ming’s argument. She accuses Ming of arguing that cookies are healthy.

ANALYSIS: Carol fails to understand Ming’s argument. Notice that Carol says “Why do you say that?”. She is utterly confused about the point of Ming’s argument.

Ming’s argument, better expressed, goes like this: If someone eats a cookie, it would be better for that cookies not to have trans fats. So it’s good that cookies now don’t have trans fats.

Ming isn’t arguing that we should eat cookies. They’re saying, if we do, then it’s a good thing that the cookies don’t have trans fats.

A lot of the wrong answers don’t make sense in light of what Carol said in the stimulus. For an answer to be right, Carol’s reply in the stimulus has to be something she would say in response to the belief stated in the answer choice.

___________

1. Neither Carol nor Ming talks about higher or lower levels of trans fats.
2. CORRECT. This must be how Carol interpreted Ming’s argument. That’s why Carol pointed out that desserts still aren’t healthy.
3. This answer would only have made sense if Carol had said “Just because cookies aren’t good for you, doesn’t mean they’re bad for you”. But Carol never addressed the distinction between “not good (neutral)” and “bad”.
4. This answer would have made sense if Carol had said “A cookie isn’t healthy just because it has less trans fat. Any trans fat is dangerous.”
5. This answer would have made sense if Carol had said something like: “It’s possible consumers can still choose to purchase trans fat cookies if they accept the health risks.”