Q9 - Nutritionist: Vitamins synthesized

[WaltGrace1983]

Completely shocked when I got this one wrong (chose C). Upon reviewing more thoroughly, I think I see why I was wrong in eliminating (E) but I cannot figure out what went wrong with (C). I am going to go through my thought process and would really like some help on this one - it doesn't make me feel good that no one else had any problems with this question (assuming that you would post if you had a problem of course, )

Vitamins synthesized by chemists are exactly the same as natural vitamins
→
It is a waste of money to pay extra for vitamin pills advertised as having higher-quality/more natural ingredients than other brands

So is this argument basically saying that vitamin pill A, vitamin pill B, C, D, etc. are all the exact same because they all have the exact vitamins that occur naturally in foods? In other words, the vitamins you are getting out of vitamin pill A are the vitamins that you are getting out vitamin pill B, C, D, etc. In this case, I could totally see why (E) would be right. If we negate (E), it is saying that "hold up! there are non vitamin ingredients that makes one brand [u]worth more money[/u] than another brand."

However, how does "worth more" = "not a waste of money?" Couldn't something be worth more and still be a complete waste of money? For example, wouldn't it be a waste of money for me to buy the latest 4k TV that is $60,000 when it is only slightly better than the last years model worth $600? The latest model is certainly worth more, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is not a waste of money still.

Besides my qualms with the "worth more" part, I get (E). Now onto (C)...

I can understand that we don't necessarily need to include "all brands" in this. Is (C) wrong because we are only talking about the vitamin pills that advertise the higher-quality/more natural ingredients? But aren't we comparing those vitamin pills to the vitamin pills that don't advertise the higher-quality/more natural ingredients? Thus, aren't we in fact talking about all vitamin pills? I am just super confused by this and help would be appreciated.

[sumukh09]

Hi,

Let me see if I can help!

Here's how I see the core:

Vitamins in foods = vitamins synthesized by chemists ---> don't pay extra to buy Brand X over Brand Y (Brand X/Y being brands of vitamins, of course)

Okay, that makes sense. If I can eat a banana and get the same vitamin benefits as I would if I ate the pills from either Brand X/Y, then why I would I pay, hypothetically speaking, 3 more dollars for Brand X than Brand Y?

Now, we're told from the stimulus that all vitamins synthesized by chemists are the same; we're not told this explicitly, but that is the implication we have to work with ie) we must equate the claim in the stimulus with "all vitamins synthesized by chemists are exactly the same."

For answer choice C), it is not necessary to assume all brands contain some synthesized vitamins. If we negate C), we get "not all brands contain some synthesized vitamins," but so what? That doesn't hurt the argument in any way; after all, the argument is about spending an extra amount of money when we don't need to. Remember to focus on the reasoning given instead of just either the support/conclusion. C) would only apply to the support part of the argument; our focus should be on the argument as a whole.

To address your question: However, how does "worth more" = "not a waste of money?"

We have to judge "waste of money" in the context of the argument. In this case, "waste of money" implies spending more on Brand X over Brand Y when both products are the same. In your TV example, I'm inclined to agree that it would be a waste of money to buy that 60K TV, but that's almost besides the point since we're comparing two things that aren't the same quality wise.

E) on the other hand, must be assumed for the argument to work. If there IS a vitamin brand that makes one brand worth buying over another, then that kills the reasoning in the argument. "Oh, Brand X and Y are in fact different, specifically, Brand X IS worth that additional 3 dollars because of this particular nonvitamin ingredient." Hmm, if that's the case, then maybe it's not a waste of money to buy Brand X instead of Y!

Hope this helps.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response!

A couple add-on thoughts:

Walt, have you ever heard the expression "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"? A lot of your forum questions spring from very careful analytical thinking that borders on OVERLY analytical LSAT paranoia ... just remember that some correct answers aren't written perfectly, but we can still find concrete reasons to eliminate other answers while being confident that we're picking 'the credited response'.

On Necessary Assumption questions, you should be VERY wary of extreme language in answer choices. Often, that's the easiest way to filter out 2 or 3 choices. Extreme language doesn't HAVE to be wrong, but it should immediately give you a suspicious feeling and lead you to investigate whether the author was assuming something so harsh.

Why does the author have to believe that all vitamin pills have some synthesized vitamins?

Does it weaken his argument if some vitamin pills are 100% natural vitamins? No.

He would just say, "Yup .. and since synthetic vitamins are exactly the same as natural vitamins, there's no reason to pay more for the natural vitamin".

Another helpful tendency to know for Necessary Assumption is that correct answers come in two flavors:
- Providing a missing link (these answers usually contain wording from the premise and wording from the conclusion that need to be linked)

- Ruling out a potential objection / alternative explanation (these
answers normally have "ruling out" wording)

(E) has that "ruling out" wording that you want to learn to love.

=== other answers ===

(A) The author doesn't have to assume that using vitamin pills is waste of money. He's only arguing that buying more expensive vitamin pills is a waste of money (compared to buying the cheaper, seemingly identical stuff)

(B) "always" is too strong. The author is definitely assuming that "sometimes" the natural vitamins are priced higher.

(C) "All" is too strong. If a vitamin pill were 100% natural, that wouldn't hurt the author's argument in any way.

(D) "false advertising" is too out of scope. A vitamin that claims it contains more natural ingredients isn't lying, in the author's eyes. It's just highlighting a feature of the product that the author thinks adds no value, since natural and synthetic vitamins are chemically identical.

(E) In order to weaken this argument (to argue the opposite of the conclusion), we need to justify why it's worth spending more for certain brands even if the vitamin content is exactly the same. This answer, if negated, says that there might be OTHER ingredients that make one brand more worthwhile. Maybe vitamins are harsh on your stomach, but some of the pricier brands include ginger in the vitamin, helping to ease in the digestion of the pill. Maybe some brands have coated capsules that make it easier to swallow the pill.

[pewals13]

If both types of vitamins are exactly the same, how could one be made of higher quality ingredients? I guess synthetic v. natural means there is some inherent level of difference, but how should "exactly the same" be defined? Is this a vitamin as a whole v. vitamin parts issue?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it never said that the vitamin pills are exactly the same.

It said that synthetic vitamins are exactly the same as natural vitamins.

So whether a molecule of Vitamin C occurs naturally or is created synthetically, it is identical.

But vitamin PILLS have vitamin ingredients and non-vitamin ingredients.

Nothing here forces us to believe that the more expensive vitamin pills are identical to less expensive vitamin pills .... just that the vitamin content of each would be exactly the same.

If you're thinking to yourself, "Sigh. I guess I get that, but HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT VITAMIN PILLS HAVE NONVITAMIN INGREDIENTS AS WELL?"

You're not, necessarily. You just have to know that any argument in the Assumption Family is by definition flawed; the conclusion CAN be falsified.

If we accepted that
Vitamin pill A is exactly the same as Vitamin pill B, which costs more, then the conclusion would be correct!

There HAS to be some way to argue that buying Vitamin pill B is NOT a waste of money. You might read the argument and not be able to come up with any good objection for how the more expensive pill might be worth more money.

But when you hit (E) and negate it, you suddenly see you DO have a means of rebuttal.

My point being, make sure you know the conclusion you're fighting, the issue you're evaluating: in this case, whether or not buying a more expensive vitamin pill is worth the extra money.

(A) doesn't weigh in on that issue ... it weighs in on "whether or not it's worth buying vitamin pills at all"

(B) weighs in on "do natural pills always cost more than synthetic"

(C) weighs in on "do all vitamin pills have at least some synthesized vitamins"?

(D) weighs in on "do vitamin pill producers ever use false advertising"? (This one might be closest to the conclusion)

But (E) is perfectly relevant to the question of whether or not buying a more expensive vitamin pill is worth the extra money.