Q10 - Public health experts have waged

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: If the veggie-eating campaign included info on ways to make veggies more appetizing, it would be more effective.
Evidence: Campaign has had little impact on people's diets, probably because many people simply dislike the taste of most veggies.

Any prephrase?
We should think through ways that the author's solution would fail to solve the problem (because Strengthen answers often work against potential objections). Let's say we provide info about ways to make veggies more appetizing. Would people read the info? Would they believe it enough to try cooking veggies? Could the recipe advice actually succeed in making someone like brussesls sprouts? Is there some other factor (like the expense / hassle of shopping for veggies) that would dissuade people from eating more veggies, even if we succeeded at giving them good recipe ideas?

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) This is a huge weakener. This suggests that "liking the taste of veggies" is not the main source of our problem. Even veggie lovers are not responding to this campaign.

B) This feels weaken-ish. It sounds like the plan backfires -- we get them to eat more veggies, but do so in a way that diminishes the health value of veggies.

C) This answer choice means and does almost nothing. First of all "People who find a few veggies appetizing" could be the same people who "dislike most veggies". So why on Earth would we compare those two heavily overlapping groups?

D) This connects the Plan to the Goal. It sounds like providing info would get us the result we want!

E) This is meant to be the tempting trap answer. It's fine for it to be strongly worded ("the only way"), since the question stem says "Which of these answers, if you accept them as true, does the most". (E) does a better job of convincing us that the author's plan is the ONLY plan. But we need to be convinced that the plan actually WORKS. (E) doesn't give us any reason to think the plan would work. Also, "ensuring that veggie haters learn to like veggies" is a poor match for our plan, which is simply "provide info on ways to make veggies more appealing". If providing info is not a way "to ENSURE that people start liking veggies more", then (E) actually tells us that our plan will absolutely NOT make the campaign more effective.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer is a simple Bridge idea that connects the plan to the desired result.

#officialexplanation

[andywalker08]

So - I was choosing between D and E and my intuition on this question said to pick the less extreme sounding D. I fail to see how the extreme conditions of E don't create an environment more conducive to the proposed plan. Can anyone explain to me why E isn't the right choice?

[chike_eze]

(E) says the only way to make campaign more effective... it does not explicitly link "more appetizing" to "eat more vegetables"
> "only way" is also too strong... I started suspecting it after reading that.

(D) on the other hand, explicitly links "more appetizing" to "eating more vegetables". It strengthens the argument by stating the underlying assumption.
> This is like a necessary assumption question dressed up as a "strengthen" question.

[ivankrasnov88]

I don't think strong language should deter you on a strengthen question.

Answer choice E is fundamentally wrong (at least I think so) because just because something is the only way to achieve a goal doesn't mean that it is guaranteed in any way.

To diagram answer choice E,
Effective Campaign -> Make People Find Vegetables Appetizing

To formulate it differently, answer choice is a sufficient necessary reasoning flaw.

For example, just because I tell you that the only way to get into law school is to take the LSAT, does that then mean if you take the LSAT, then you're in Law School? Not at all. It's merely a rule.

Similarly, that's what E does: it introduces a conditional rule that places what we want on the necessary side instead of the sufficient.

[jayparkcom]

was anybody suspicious of answer choice D because it's sorta of
conclusion-booster?

I always was wary of choosing anything that "boosts" one of the statements in the argument... because often times, LSAT will put "premise-boosters" as one of ACs which are often wrong answers...

is D a correct answer because it's a conclusion booster, not a premise booster?

[wgutx08]

I donot think E is wrong because it's a necessary condition rather than a sufficient one.

I see E as a weakener because of its language. The "only" way to be more effective is to ensure "anyone" who dislikes veggies finds them more appealing. Sure the campaign on ways to cook veggies will not be able to persuade "anyone", so it will not get ppl to eat more veggies.

If E drops that "anyone" and just say "...to ensure that people who at present..., " i think it will be a strengthener??? If something is the only way, then it is a way -- as it is stated, I feel E totally bridges the gap.

This may be an important issue though, regarding nec/suff statements as strengthener. Would totally appreciate it if one of the experts could weigh in!

[tommywallach]

Hey Wgutx,

I actually agree with you that (E) is a weakener here. It tells us that there is only one way for the campaign to succeed:

"Ensure that anyone who dislikes the taste of certain vegetables learns to find them appealing."

Notice how impossible this would be. We need to be absolutely certain that every single person who doesn't like vegetables learns to find them appealing. "Appealing" is much stronger than "tolerable" or "edible". What are the chances that we can get every single person to suddenly find vegetables appealing? Slim to none. And that's the only way the campaign can succeed! What a weakener!

Hope that helps!

[wgutx08]

Thanks so much for your help Tommy!

A follow-up Q:
If E drops that "anyone" and just say "...to ensure that people who at present..., " i think it will be a strengthener??? If something is the only way, then it is a way -- as it is stated, I feel E totally bridges the gap.

In more general terms, if we have such a question:
A will be effective since it has X in it.---look for strengthener
a) X does make stuff effective
b)the only way to be effective in this context is to have X

while a) will be the orthodox answer, is b) also legit?? -- if a) is not among the choices of course.

Thanks so much!!!!

[amil91]

I don't think strong language should deter you on a strengthen question.

Answer choice E is fundamentally wrong (at least I think so) because just because something is the only way to achieve a goal doesn't mean that it is guaranteed in any way.

To diagram answer choice E,
Effective Campaign -> Make People Find Vegetables Appetizing

To formulate it differently, answer choice is a sufficient necessary reasoning flaw.

For example, just because I tell you that the only way to get into law school is to take the LSAT, does that then mean if you take the LSAT, then you're in Law School? Not at all. It's merely a rule.

Similarly, that's what E does: it introduces a conditional rule that places what we want on the necessary side instead of the sufficient.

The problem I have with this reasoning for this question, is the argument's conclusion is that the campaign would have probably been more effective if blah blah blah... So answer E at first states the only way to make the campaign more effective, and that way almost lines up with the way suggested in the argument's conclusion. Except it goes so far that it actually weakens the argument by using the word 'anyone,' meaning all people that dislike vegetables would have to then find vegetables appealing for the campaign to succeed.

I think your reasoning would have worked had the conclusion said something like the campaign would have been effective blah blah blah...

[tommywallach]

Hey Wgutx,

That really wouldn't happen, because it wouldn't be bridging any gap, it would just be repeating the prompt (i.e. We need to make vegetables more appetizing in order to get people to eat them). So no, we need to strengthener we get. Remember, the strengthener will still address the gap between premise and conclusion, and the gap here is the connection between finding something appetizing and eating it.

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

I also had trouble between D and E when I was drilling. However, I ended up picking D but I was not absolutely confident. I was very skeptical (and I really always am) when the LSAT talks about very absolute statements, i.e. "The only way..."

Here is my analysis that I wrote up on this question. Hope it helps someone.

"People dislike the taste of vegetables
-->
Campaign would be more effective if it included ways to make vegetables more appetizing"
"Question Type: Strengthen

My Thought Process: There is a gap here between people eating more vegetables and finding them appetizing. The argument is saying that people don't like vegetables BUT if we made them more appetizing then people would eat more. What if simply making them MORE appetizing will still not do anything? Also, who's to say that people are actually paying attention this campaign anyway? Furthermore, and probably most importantly, what if they still won't find vegetables even if they find them more appetizing. An answer choice that says something about how people eat what is appetizing would seem to fit the bill here.

(A) But they love the taste of vegetables! This is not really that relevent. We are ultimately focusing on the people that really don't like the taste of vegetables. The people that love vegetables are assumably going to be eating the vegetables regardless of any campaign.

(B) I think that this is a great trick answer! The argument is dealing with only making the campaign more effective (aka getting people to eat more vegetables). The purposeof the campaign may be to help prevent cancer, but we aren't worried about that at all. We are only worried about making the campaign more effective! Thus, this can really get your head looped around. Ultimately though, this doesn't have much bearing on the argument and in fact may actually WEAKEN the argument by saying that the campaign will ultimately be uneffective anyway because the if we try to make the vegetables more appetizing the whole point of the campaign (preventing cancer) will be lost.

(C) This weakens it seems Once again, we need to be clear of our goal! We are to strengthen the argument! Sometimes when going through the answer choices we have the key words in mind: "appetizing," "eat," "more vegetables," etc. Remember your goal! You are to strengthen that argument! This is saying that even if we do make the vegetables more appetizing this will still not lead to people eating more of them because the people that find a few vegetables appetizing don't eat more than the people who "dislike the taste of most vegetables." This has all the key words but doesn't strengthen the argument!

(D) Yes! This is a great correct answer that fits in perfectly. The argument is saying that "hey, people dislike the taste of vegetables so if we make them more appetizing the campaign will be more effective." This answer choice is saying "hey, that makes sense because people eat more vegetables when they know how to make them more appetizing!" If you were making this argument, this would be a great way to solidify your reasoning. Thus, this is a correct answer.

(E) This would seem like the best answer choice probably if it wasn't for D. This seems great! However, there are some problems with it. It is very strong -- so strong that it seems to actually weaken the conclusion. The conclusion is saying that "the campaign would probably be more effective if it included info on how to make veggies more appetizing" but this answer choice is saying that there is only ONE way to make the campaign more effective. This is to make ANYONE who dislikes the taste of certain vegetables find them APPETIZING. So while the conclusion is quite soft (aka "include some ways to make them more appetizing") this answer choice is saying, "no no no. We must do much more than that to make it effective. We must ENSURE that EVERYONE finds veggies APPETIZING -- not okay or bearable -- but APPETIZING. All of a sudden we turned America into a group of vegetable-eating mongers! This doesn't completely destroy the argument or anything but it says that "actually, just including some info really isn't enough."

[mimimimi]

My problem with (E) is "anyone... the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appetizing."

In the argument the conclusion is "...information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing."

To me, "make" is more like cooking, whereas "learns to find" is almost like being educated to enjoy vegetables.

Thoughts?

[JeremyK460]

premise:
campaign tried to get people to eat more veggies
that didn't work
this is probs because they don't like how it tastes

conclusion:
it'd probs be more effective to show them how to make veggies taste better

process:
the author believes his proposed course of action could be effective
if more people weren't eating veggies after being told that they were healthy and important
and if the author believes that showing them a youtube DIY Broccoli Rabe dish video can be effective
the author must assume that more people will eat veggies after seeing those DIY vids (answer d)

if someone asked me if i wanted broccoli or a big mac...i'm choosing the big mac
if someone asked me if i wanted broccoli rabe (italian dish) or a big mac...i'm still choosing the big mac LOL

analogy argument:
jeremy is trying to get eric to workout more
jeremy tried to educate eric on the health benefits of exercise
but that didn't work
this is probably because eric thinks working out is boring
so jeremy would be more effective if he showed eric how working out can be fun

(d) but written like (e)
the only way for eric to know how to make working out more fun is for eric to workout more than he was before
this is about the necessity of getting eric to workout more
and because it stresses the necessity by saying 'without eric exercising more, he won't ever know how it could be fun'
it implies the imperativeness of following through with the course of action
all of this is just not the thrust of the argument

(d)
if eric knew how to make working out fun he'd workout more
this is about what would get eric to workout more
not that we (the campaign) NEEDS him to