Q6 - Although this bottle is labeled "vinegar"

[raymondcezar]

Hello,

My question deals with wording of the correct answer, B, which states that the author "fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect."

My interpretation of the answer: The author included the alternative explanation (that the vinegar could have been mislabeled).

The author's flaw is that he or she assumed it was the baking soda that was mislabeled. There was no explicit consideration of other alternative explanations in which the author decided against.

Could it be that the correct answer is referring to the author's failure of excluding the assumption that the box is mislabeled?

Or, to make my question more basic, what is the right interpretation of B?

I appreciate the help, Manhattan LSAT.

[maryadkins]

(B) is saying that the author fails to exclude (translation: deal with/address/handle/explain why it's not that case that) an alternative explanation for why there was no fizzing, which is that perhaps the BAKING SODA is mislabeled, not the vinegar bottle. If there isn't fizz and there should have been, one of the boxes must be mislabeled, and the author concludes it must be the vinegar. But that doesn't have to be true.

I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at below, but this is how to read (B).

As for the other answer choices:

(A) is incorrect because it's not anything the author is ignoring--the author argues that the bottle doesn't contain vinegar, so he or she doesn't also ignore the possibility that it doesn't contain vinegar!

(C) is wrong because the logic here isn't about meaning or precision of the term "fizz."

(D) is out of scope. We have no idea what the lab conditions were--maybe they were fine. And anyway this isn't a reasoning flaw.

(E) isn't what the argument does and intention doesn't matter.

[raymondcezar]

Thank you so much! I understand it now. I had misinterpreted the answer. Basically, the author failed to explain why the alternative explanation was wrong (failure to exclude an alternative explanation).

Because he didn't do so, and assumed that it must be the vinegar that is mislabeled, that is a flaw.

[lsat2016]

Hi,

could another potential flaw be that not enough vinegar was added to the baking soda? the premises say that fizzing didn't occur when SOME of the liquid was added to the powder, meaning that they could have only added one drop, which isn't enough to produce a fizzing reaction.

[JinZ551]

Hi,

could another potential flaw be that not enough vinegar was added to the baking soda? the premises say that fizzing didn't occur when SOME of the liquid was added to the powder, meaning that they could have only added one drop, which isn't enough to produce a fizzing reaction.

No, I think how much vinegar is added doesn't matter in this case. Because in the premise, it says that "when AN acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting misture fizzes", which means it does not require the vinegar added must reach a specific amount to get the "fizzes“ result.

Hope that helps.

[StanthemanH328]

Saying it could be the baking soda that is mislabled and referred to by the conclusion is not right I think. The stimulus said "this bottle" is labeled as vinegar and the conclusion refers to "this bottle" clearly has been mislabeled, while the for baking soda, the stimulus said "this BOX labeled baking soda". I don't think the argument of mislabelling refers to baking soda can stand.

B is better than A for catching more unstated possibilities. Honestly I still can see what possibilities exist that can render the conclusion wrong without negating a premise (such as saying it was not baking soda that is added)? Can anyone help, please?