Q22 - Food that is very high

[yoohoo081]

Can you see if flawed reasoning is correct?

High Fat-> unhealthy
Brownies are Fat Free
Cookies have High Fat
------
Brownies healthier than cookies

Flawed is thinking high in fat in generally is unhealthy. However, we don't know if fat free things are healthier or not when compared to high in fat things.
for example*Fat Free brownies could be unhealthier than the cookies with high fat because of substituted contents to make it fat free.

So, answer choice B corresponds with above because we only know that over cooked-> few vitamins. However, we don't know that overcooked carrots have fewer vitamins than uncooked peas. Cannot assumed from what we know that undercooked peas have less vitamins.

Please correct me if this reasoning doesn't make sence. Thank you,

[giladedelman]

Hey RK,

I think you're on the right track here. Just because the brownies are fat free doesn't mean they're healthier than the fatty cookies; similarly, just because the peas are uncooked doesn't mean they have more vitamins than the carrots. In both cases, there are other factors that could come into play: maybe brownies are super high in cholesterol, or something, and maybe peas start out with way fewer vitamins than carrots.

Another flaw is that we go from a premise about what is generally the case to a conclusion about what is definitely the case in a specific instance: "these fat-free brownies are healthier than those cookies are." Answer (B) exhibits this flaw, too, by going from what is generally true of vegetables to a specific comparison of some peas and some carrots. It's like saying, Americans are generally taller than Taiwanese people, therefore I'm taller than my Taiwanese roommate. But guess what -- I'm not! (True story.)

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is out because it starts out with "always," so it's okay to apply that to a specific example.

(C) is a different flaw: just because water lacks something that's necessary for health doesn't make it unhealthy. Also, we don't have any comparison between two things here, which might be a fast way to recognize it's incorrect.

(D) was tempting to me, but for one thing, it doesn't go from general to specific; it goes from "some," which is logically different from "in general" (the latter of which means "most of the time"), to a conclusion about probability, not about something that's absolutely the case.

Also, there is a different flaw here. In the original, we know the brownies have less fat. But in this example, just because the cookies have a higher percentage of nuts doesn't mean they have the specific nuts that make Roy's throat itch. So I see this as a different flaw.

(E) seems like a pretty solid argument, actually.

Great post!

[daijob]

I thought E could be the answer because even it is home-made, it can be more expensive if you use really good ingredients...but maybe E is wrong because of the words "the same dishes"? (So, using exactly the same ingredients to make the same dishes...that would be more expensive eating at restaurants because there would be personnel expenses.)

[ohthatpatrick]

Are you just talking about why (E) might be flawed or are you asking if it’s a better match for the original argument?

What did you think was the flaw with the original argument? Do you agree/disagree with how the previous explanations characterized the flaw in the original argument?

If you’re making a case for (E), you gotta tell me how it matches up with the original.

It also sounds like your hypothetical objection “eating at home COULD cost more if you just used fancier ingredients” is just contradicting the premise in (E), which says “Eating at a restaurant costs more than eating food prepared at home”. If we accept that claim, as we accept premises, then your objection is not allowed. If you’re analyzing the REASONING in (E), it looks like it might be solid logic!

If I accept the PREM, then I’m gonna have to believe that any meal at a restaurant DOES cost more than a meal at home.

[kyuya]

This question is difficult because if you do not catch the language indicating the degree, which amounts to a general statement that the argument concedes has caveats, you'll probably be stuck between (B) and (E) and choose (E) wrongly like I did.

The flaw in the argument is this: the argument states a generality that is usually true, and then tries to make a definitive statement about that generality. However, inherent in a generality is the implicit understanding that it is NOT an absolute, but rather something that can reliably be inferred a good amount of the time.

The original argument states that foods high in fat tend to be unhealthy (general rule). Then concludes that since the brownies are fat free and the cookies have a lot of fat, the brownies are healthier. The issue is that there is a multitude of things that can contribute to the healthfulness or lack thereof in a food, so falling in line with the generality is NOT basis for making an absolute claim like this.

(A) There is no generality here. This is actually a valid argument. It says 100% of the time, no matter what, canned foods have more salt. It does not say GENERALLY, canned foods have more salt than other foods.

(B) This is the right answer. Makes the general statement (vegetables that are overcooked have generally fewer vitamins). Then makes an absolute claim about two sets of items, one of which falls in line with this generality and one which does not -- but there is not enough information to make this claim. Mimics the flaw in the stimulus.

(C) This is just very far off from the original argument. No generality is made. Completely different flaw.

(D) This is a different flaw completely. No generality is made, much like in (C). This argument assumes that if "X" causes something, the more of "X" there is, the more likely and severely the result will be. This isn't taking a generality and drawing an absolute conclusion from it.

(E) Much like (A), the language precludes this answer choice from mimicking the flaw in the stimulus. This makes an absolute statement that eating at restaurants always costs more than eating food prepared at home. Since it is stated in this manner, we take it as truth. Then it makes a valid conclusion from this.

The issue with this answer choice is validity vs truth , and seperating LSAT world from the real world. If we refer back to (A), does it have to be true in real life that all canned foods contain more salts than frozen foods? Of course not. But this is the reality presented to us, so we take as a it is on the LSAT. It is a VALID argument, but not necessarily TRUE as we would think in real life, because we would fundamentally disagree with the truth of the statement.

(E) is the same. It tells is something and draws a valid LSAT conclusion from it. Is it TRUE in real life? No, it doesn't have to be. But we don't bring in outside things for the LSAT, we use the info we are given in this world. So we use it accordingly and draw the valid conclusion for (E), which makes it the wrong match for the stimulus, which does not provide us with the same validity in its conclusion.