Question Type:
Strengthen
Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
1. In a recent test, people liked low-fat chocolate ice cream as much as full-fat.
2. In previous tests, people complained that low-fat vanilla ice cream had a harsher taste than full-fat.
3. Chocolate is a complex flavor produced by around 500 distinct flavors.
Conclusion:
The complexity of chocolate probably masks any difference in taste between low-fat and full-fat chocolate ice cream.
Answer Anticipation:
The tests described in the premises involve different flavors of ice cream—chocolate vs. vanilla—but we should also notice that the chocolate test is recent, whereas the vanilla test occurred at some time in the past. Could that be why the results were different? We can strengthen the argument by stating that the different test results aren't somehow a result of them being conducted at different times.
Also, we have a premise that states chocolate is a complex flavor, but how complex is vanilla? Could it be equally complex? We don't know. Stating that chocolate is more complex than vanilla would strengthen the argument.
Correct Answer:
(D)
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is irrelevant. If people like full-fat chocolate ice cream more than full-fat vanilla, it doesn't help explain how the complexity of chocolate might mask a difference in flavor between different types of chocolate ice cream.
(B) This is a premise booster. If subjects in the previous test—the vanilla test—weren't told about the difference in fat content, they might not have been expecting a difference in taste. This supports the idea that the different types of vanilla really did taste different. However, this doesn't help support a conclusion that the complexity of chocolate masks any difference in taste.
(C) This is also irrelevant. Since we don't know if vanilla does or doesn't require more compounds than chocolate, we don't know how this answer affects the argument.
(D) This is correct. If we know that vanilla is significantly less complex than chocolate, it strengthens the idea that this difference, and not some other, is responsible for the difference seen in the tests.
(E) This is irrelevant. This tells us that are aware of the complexity of flavors, but it doesn't tell us if they understand how complexity relates to taste, so it's hard to know if this would impact the tests in any way. Also, this still doesn't tell us how complex vanilla is.
Takeaway/Pattern: Many arguments in LR involve comparisons. Notice what the premises tell us about the comparison, and what details are left out. The conclusion often relies on important details that aren't explicitly stated in the premises.
#officialexplanation
LSAT Forum
11 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- smiller
-
Thanks Received: 73
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 205
- Joined: February 01st, 2013
-
- GeneW
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 45
- Joined: October 11th, 2012
Q6 - A recent taste test
I see why D is the answer, but can someone please explain why B (a blind test) is not a better answer that strengthens the argument? Thank you.
-
- fmuirhea
-
Thanks Received: 64
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 46
- Joined: November 29th, 2012
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
Can you elaborate on how you think (B) strengthens? Are you assuming that if the tests had not been blind people may have lied about/been influenced in their preferences? For example, they might have (un)consciously associated "low-fat" with harsher flavors and/or "high-fat" with better taste?
I think I see where you're going - you're trying to validate the integrity of the evidence. I think (B) falls down a bit, though. It confirms that the vanilla taste tests were blind, but not the chocolate ("previous tests" vs. "a recent taste test" in the stimulus). Here’s what the argument would look like with that piece added in:
P: vanilla taste tests (which were blind) showed that people dislike low-fat
P: chocolate taste tests (blind or not?) showed that people like low- and high-fat about the same
P: chocolate is complex (what about vanilla?)
C: complexity probably masks taste difference, accounting for no clear preference between low- and high-fat chocolate
It's most helpful to focus on the structure here. We have a common LSAT pattern: an observed phenomenon followed by a proposed explanation for that phenomenon. This question extends it even further, however, and almost resembles a resolve/explain stimulus. Not only are we told there's no difference in preference between low- and high-fat chocolate ice cream, we're told there is a difference between low- and high-fat vanilla ice cream. This presents a puzzle: what is it about chocolate specifically that differentiates it from other flavors? The proposed explanation is its complexity.
Selecting (B) creates a new hole in the comparison _ were both taste tests blind, or just the vanilla? More troubling, it doesn’t fix the hole that already exists _ how complex is vanilla? So, even if (B) indicated that both tastes were blind, I would still prefer (D), because even with this hypothetically modified (B) added in, it doesn’t tell us about the complexity of vanilla, which is important to evaluating the conclusion.
Whenever an argument relies on a comparison, the assumption is that the two things being compared are actually comparable, or that the only thing that differentiates them is the characteristic under discussion (so, complexity in this example). But, does the argument actually tell us whether vanilla is complex or not? We need this information to determine if complexity is a differentiating factor between chocolate and vanilla and thus whether it might be the factor that accounts for the diminished ability to distinguish between low- and high-fat chocolate.
Strengthen questions are just the flip side of weaken questions, so it’s helpful to think of ways you might attack an argument, then confirm that such an attack is not valid in order to strengthen the argument. Think of necessary assumptions (all assumptions are strengtheners) that fall into the defender category; they anticipate and rule out objections to the conclusion.
Imagine that vanilla were a complex flavor. Then we’d have a situation where two complex flavors were tasted, yet in one case people thought the low-fat version was harsh (vanilla) but not in the other case (chocolate). This would suggest that complexity is not the key factor; otherwise you’d expect similar results for both flavors. Since that would weaken the argument, you can confirm the opposite to strengthen. With (D) added in, here’s the argument:
P: vanilla taste tests showed that people dislike low-fat
P: chocolate taste tests showed that people like low- and high-fat about the same
P: chocolate is complex
P: vanilla is significantly less complex than chocolate
C: complexity probably masks taste difference, accounting for no clear preference between low- and high-fat chocolate
Now we have an argument without holes; the same factors are discussed for each side of the comparison (results of the taste test and level of complexity). Since the results are different, and we’ve confirmed that complexity is a differentiating factor, there’s a better chance that the proposed explanation is correct. It’s not guaranteed, of course, but the credited response on strengthen questions is rarely so strong. Ultimately, we have strengthened by confirming the validity of the evidence (making explicit the assumption that vanilla is not complex), just in a different way than you were initially thinking.
Comparisons pop up all over the LR section, and the credited response for strengthen/weaken questions based on arguments that involve comparisons will often revolve around confirming/denying the validity of the comparison itself. Usually you want to pick an answer choice that mentions both sides of the comparison (so, (B) fails in so far as it introduces a third factor but only tells us how it applies to vanilla _ it creates more holes without fixing the existing one!), unless there is already a hole in the comparison (as is the case here since we don’t know how complex vanilla is); in that case, go with the answer choice that fills that hole in the desired strengthen/weaken way.
I think I see where you're going - you're trying to validate the integrity of the evidence. I think (B) falls down a bit, though. It confirms that the vanilla taste tests were blind, but not the chocolate ("previous tests" vs. "a recent taste test" in the stimulus). Here’s what the argument would look like with that piece added in:
P: vanilla taste tests (which were blind) showed that people dislike low-fat
P: chocolate taste tests (blind or not?) showed that people like low- and high-fat about the same
P: chocolate is complex (what about vanilla?)
C: complexity probably masks taste difference, accounting for no clear preference between low- and high-fat chocolate
It's most helpful to focus on the structure here. We have a common LSAT pattern: an observed phenomenon followed by a proposed explanation for that phenomenon. This question extends it even further, however, and almost resembles a resolve/explain stimulus. Not only are we told there's no difference in preference between low- and high-fat chocolate ice cream, we're told there is a difference between low- and high-fat vanilla ice cream. This presents a puzzle: what is it about chocolate specifically that differentiates it from other flavors? The proposed explanation is its complexity.
Selecting (B) creates a new hole in the comparison _ were both taste tests blind, or just the vanilla? More troubling, it doesn’t fix the hole that already exists _ how complex is vanilla? So, even if (B) indicated that both tastes were blind, I would still prefer (D), because even with this hypothetically modified (B) added in, it doesn’t tell us about the complexity of vanilla, which is important to evaluating the conclusion.
Whenever an argument relies on a comparison, the assumption is that the two things being compared are actually comparable, or that the only thing that differentiates them is the characteristic under discussion (so, complexity in this example). But, does the argument actually tell us whether vanilla is complex or not? We need this information to determine if complexity is a differentiating factor between chocolate and vanilla and thus whether it might be the factor that accounts for the diminished ability to distinguish between low- and high-fat chocolate.
Strengthen questions are just the flip side of weaken questions, so it’s helpful to think of ways you might attack an argument, then confirm that such an attack is not valid in order to strengthen the argument. Think of necessary assumptions (all assumptions are strengtheners) that fall into the defender category; they anticipate and rule out objections to the conclusion.
Imagine that vanilla were a complex flavor. Then we’d have a situation where two complex flavors were tasted, yet in one case people thought the low-fat version was harsh (vanilla) but not in the other case (chocolate). This would suggest that complexity is not the key factor; otherwise you’d expect similar results for both flavors. Since that would weaken the argument, you can confirm the opposite to strengthen. With (D) added in, here’s the argument:
P: vanilla taste tests showed that people dislike low-fat
P: chocolate taste tests showed that people like low- and high-fat about the same
P: chocolate is complex
P: vanilla is significantly less complex than chocolate
C: complexity probably masks taste difference, accounting for no clear preference between low- and high-fat chocolate
Now we have an argument without holes; the same factors are discussed for each side of the comparison (results of the taste test and level of complexity). Since the results are different, and we’ve confirmed that complexity is a differentiating factor, there’s a better chance that the proposed explanation is correct. It’s not guaranteed, of course, but the credited response on strengthen questions is rarely so strong. Ultimately, we have strengthened by confirming the validity of the evidence (making explicit the assumption that vanilla is not complex), just in a different way than you were initially thinking.
Comparisons pop up all over the LR section, and the credited response for strengthen/weaken questions based on arguments that involve comparisons will often revolve around confirming/denying the validity of the comparison itself. Usually you want to pick an answer choice that mentions both sides of the comparison (so, (B) fails in so far as it introduces a third factor but only tells us how it applies to vanilla _ it creates more holes without fixing the existing one!), unless there is already a hole in the comparison (as is the case here since we don’t know how complex vanilla is); in that case, go with the answer choice that fills that hole in the desired strengthen/weaken way.
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
Wow ... speechless. FANTASTIC explanation.
Okay, not literally speechless ... here are some quick justifications for the other answers
(A) How is this answer going to help us support the conclusion that "complexity makes us overlook low-fat in an ice cream flavor"? This is concerned with a full-fat vs. full-fat taste test. It's irrelevant to the low-fat vs. full-fat taste tests the argument is concerned with explaining.
(C) Okay, well we know chocolate has a lot of distinct compounds. This answer would tell us that people would like chocolate more than something that has fewer distinct compounds. Cool! So that's why people like chocolate more than vanilla, because vanilla has fewer distinct compounds. Right?
Wait. They never told us that vanilla has fewer distinct compounds. So this answer goes nowhere. It also demonstrates why (D) is something we really need to be told in order to judge chocolate vs. vanilla, in regards to complexity.
(E) People's awareness or oblivion of the underlying chemical properties are irrelevant to whether the underlying chemical properties do / don't cause some phenomenon.
In order for you to assess whether radiation exposure caused me to have cancer, do you need to know whether I am aware of the biological processes by which radiation exposure can cause cancer?
Certainly not.
Okay, not literally speechless ... here are some quick justifications for the other answers
(A) How is this answer going to help us support the conclusion that "complexity makes us overlook low-fat in an ice cream flavor"? This is concerned with a full-fat vs. full-fat taste test. It's irrelevant to the low-fat vs. full-fat taste tests the argument is concerned with explaining.
(C) Okay, well we know chocolate has a lot of distinct compounds. This answer would tell us that people would like chocolate more than something that has fewer distinct compounds. Cool! So that's why people like chocolate more than vanilla, because vanilla has fewer distinct compounds. Right?
Wait. They never told us that vanilla has fewer distinct compounds. So this answer goes nowhere. It also demonstrates why (D) is something we really need to be told in order to judge chocolate vs. vanilla, in regards to complexity.
(E) People's awareness or oblivion of the underlying chemical properties are irrelevant to whether the underlying chemical properties do / don't cause some phenomenon.
In order for you to assess whether radiation exposure caused me to have cancer, do you need to know whether I am aware of the biological processes by which radiation exposure can cause cancer?
Certainly not.
-
- pewals13
-
Thanks Received: 15
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 85
- Joined: May 25th, 2013
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
Basically this quesion says that there is a difference between two types of things (chocolate and vanilla ice-cream) and that one of the things has a certain quality (chocolate is very complex).
The stimulus then concludes that the quality mentioned is the reason for this difference (the fact that people like both full fat and non-fat chocolate but dislike non-fat vanilla)
In order for complexity to account for the difference it would need to be unique to one of the groups (chocolate ice-cream) we don't know that it is. If vanilla is just as complex as chocolate this argument doesn't work.
Answer choices:
(C) The more distinct compounds required to produce a flavor, the better people like it.
- This does draw a connection between complexity and taste, however, what if vanilla is just as complex as chocolate?
(D) Vanilla is known to be a significantly less complex flavor than chocolate.
-This answer choice establishes that complexity is limited to one of the two groups- thereby making it more likely it is the reason for the difference
The stimulus then concludes that the quality mentioned is the reason for this difference (the fact that people like both full fat and non-fat chocolate but dislike non-fat vanilla)
In order for complexity to account for the difference it would need to be unique to one of the groups (chocolate ice-cream) we don't know that it is. If vanilla is just as complex as chocolate this argument doesn't work.
Answer choices:
(C) The more distinct compounds required to produce a flavor, the better people like it.
- This does draw a connection between complexity and taste, however, what if vanilla is just as complex as chocolate?
(D) Vanilla is known to be a significantly less complex flavor than chocolate.
-This answer choice establishes that complexity is limited to one of the two groups- thereby making it more likely it is the reason for the difference
-
- pewals13
-
Thanks Received: 15
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 85
- Joined: May 25th, 2013
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
Quick question on (C):
In the stimulus there's no connection between complexity and better/masked taste, (C) provides such a connection, does that make it a slight strengthener?
The way I distinguished (C) and (D) was by looking at each from it's least persuasive angle- (C) could strengthen or have no impact depending on how you look at it, while (D) strengthens any way you slice it
Thanks!
In the stimulus there's no connection between complexity and better/masked taste, (C) provides such a connection, does that make it a slight strengthener?
The way I distinguished (C) and (D) was by looking at each from it's least persuasive angle- (C) could strengthen or have no impact depending on how you look at it, while (D) strengthens any way you slice it
Thanks!
-
- gaheexlee
-
Thanks Received: 10
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 55
- Joined: May 27th, 2014
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
pewals13 Wrote:Quick question on (C):
In the stimulus there's no connection between complexity and better/masked taste, (C) provides such a connection, does that make it a slight strengthener?
The textbook answer is that (C) doesn't strengthen at all since there's only ever one correct answer.
But I personally agree with you in saying that (C) does have the potential to slightly strengthen by confirming the correlation between complexity and taste. It's just that in order for (C) to apply to our stimulus, we need to first assume that (D) is true. After all, if we know of the complexity of just one of the chemicals we're working with, we have no way of drawing a comparative conclusion.
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
Good question.
As you said:
In the stimulus there's no connection between complexity and better/masked taste
The only connection we need for the argument is a connection between complexity and masked taste.
(C) makes a connection between complexity and better taste.
We were never trying to prove that chocolate tastes better than vanilla (or explain data in which people thought chocolate tasted good).
We're only trying to explain data in which people like low-fat chocolate as much as full-fat chocolate (but that doesn't mean they necessarily like EITHER version of chocolate that much). It only means that there's no perceived difference/preference between low-fat and full-fat chocolate.
So we could probably say (C) does nothing, since we only need to know that more complexity leads to better masking.
As you said:
In the stimulus there's no connection between complexity and better/masked taste
The only connection we need for the argument is a connection between complexity and masked taste.
(C) makes a connection between complexity and better taste.
We were never trying to prove that chocolate tastes better than vanilla (or explain data in which people thought chocolate tasted good).
We're only trying to explain data in which people like low-fat chocolate as much as full-fat chocolate (but that doesn't mean they necessarily like EITHER version of chocolate that much). It only means that there's no perceived difference/preference between low-fat and full-fat chocolate.
So we could probably say (C) does nothing, since we only need to know that more complexity leads to better masking.
-
- hanhansummer
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 24
- Joined: August 04th, 2016
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
I choose B as well, because I think if subjects were informed of the difference in fat content, it may influence their preference. (Previously, some strengthen questions would choose an answer to eliminate the alternative explanation.) But later I realize it's a taste test, so it means people like low-fat chocolate ice-cream just for its taste.
I think previous experience can help us better anticipate the possible answer, but just be careful not to be trapped in stereotype!
I think previous experience can help us better anticipate the possible answer, but just be careful not to be trapped in stereotype!
-
- DorisW471
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 4
- Joined: January 03rd, 2020
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
ohthatpatrick Wrote:Good question.
As you said:
In the stimulus there's no connection between complexity and better/masked taste
The only connection we need for the argument is a connection between complexity and masked taste.
(C) makes a connection between complexity and better taste.
We were never trying to prove that chocolate tastes better than vanilla (or explain data in which people thought chocolate tasted good).
We're only trying to explain data in which people like low-fat chocolate as much as full-fat chocolate (but that doesn't mean they necessarily like EITHER version of chocolate that much). It only means that there's no perceived difference/preference between low-fat and full-fat chocolate.
So we could probably say (C) does nothing, since we only need to know that more complexity leads to better masking.
Hi, I have a question with regard to this one. I think this question is more about correlation to causation. There is a phenomenon which may just be correlation, but the author takes it as a causation and says that the complexity propably be the reason of the difference in taste. So in order to strengthen it, we could say that the cause (complexity) didn't happen and the effect (preference in tastes) didn't happen.
My question is about the other possible weakening and strehgthening methods. Due to the word probably in the conclusion, I think raising an alternative cause cannot be the way to weaken this causation, and eliminating an alternative cause cannot be the way to strengthen this causation, either. I wonder if my extrapolation is right, thank you so much.
-
- smiller
-
Thanks Received: 73
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 205
- Joined: February 01st, 2013
Re: Q6 - A recent taste test
DorisW471 Wrote:Hi, I have a question with regard to this one. I think this question is more about correlation to causation. There is a phenomenon which may just be correlation, but the author takes it as a causation and says that the complexity propably be the reason of the difference in taste. So in order to strengthen it, we could say that the cause (complexity) didn't happen and the effect (preference in tastes) didn't happen.
My question is about the other possible weakening and strehgthening methods. Due to the word probably in the conclusion, I think raising an alternative cause cannot be the way to weaken this causation, and eliminating an alternative cause cannot be the way to strengthen this causation, either. I wonder if my extrapolation is right, thank you so much.
Some LSAT arguments have more than one flaw, or have a flaw that can be described in a few different ways. One premise in this argument does describe a correlation between chocolate and complexity, and the conclusion does claim that the complexity probably causes a difference in flavor to be masked. So it's accurate to say that the argument exhibits a "correlation vs. causation" flaw.
I'm not sure that we can strengthen an argument like this by stating that the cause "didn't happen" and the effect "didn't happen." To strengthen a causal argument, we introduce evidence which increases the likelihood that the supposed cause did, in fact, produce the supposed effect.
It is helpful to notice the strength of the conclusion. Like you pointed out, this conclusion states that the complexity "probably" masks the difference in taste between low-fat and full-fat chocolate ice cream. In a way, this conclusion acknowledges that there could be other possible causes. If the conclusion stated that the complexity definitely masked the difference in flavor, identifying an alternate cause would do more to weaken the argument, and eliminating an alternate cause would do more to strengthen. So you're on the right track, to some extent.
However, "probably" means "most likely." The conclusion still states that the complexity is the most likely cause. We can indeed weaken the argument by identifying an alternative cause. For example, it might be known that one of the 500 chemical compounds mentioned masks a difference in taste due to fat. If that's true, we can't conclude that the complexity is probably the cause. It might just be that one compound, all by itself. Likewise, we could strengthen the argument by eliminating this as a possibility.
It's too strong of a statement to say that in this case we cannot weaken by identifying an alternate cause and cannot strengthen by eliminating one. The forcefulness of the conclusion affects how much the argument is strengthened or weakened, but it can still be strengthened or weakened by exploring alternatives.
11 posts Page 1 of 1