PT 41 LR Section 1, #18

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

PT 41 LR Section 1, #18

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:59 pm

Can someone break the answer choices down for me? I don't understand the right answer, and the answer I originally put down seemed shaky at best.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 41 LR Section 1, #18

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:22 pm

please helppp!

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: PT 41 LR Section 1, #18

Postby AverageTutoring » Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:24 pm

Conclusion: Some people are completely ignoring the health reccomendation.

Reasoning: Steak Houses are flourishing despite an overall decline in the general restaurant industry.

Flaw:
The conclusion states that there are some people who completely ignore the health reccomendation.

Granted, by eating steak, people are ignoring the health reccomendation. But that doesn't mean they are completely ignoring the reccomendation. Perhaps they follow it in other aspects of their lives (i.e. they stop buying red meat at the market) but just not at the steak house.

Answer choice E picks up on this.

User avatar
yzero1
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: PT 41 LR Section 1, #18

Postby yzero1 » Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:47 pm

Stimulus breakdown:

1. Officials recommend people eat less high-cholesterol foods
4. Restaurant industry has declined overall
5. Steakhouses are doing well
(the part about the decline in the total consumption of beef is not really important)

The conclusion: people are ignoring the health recommendation

The flaw here is that the argument does not consider that people could be eating more steaks but reducing their consumption of OTHER high-cholesterol food so that overall they are still reducing their intake of high-cholesterol food. If this were true, then everyone would be following the recommendation.

Answer choices:

A) How steak restaurants attract customers is irrelevant.

B) There is no assumption that people eating steak at steak restaurants do not need to reduce their intake of high-cholesterol foods. The author may very well feel that they SHOULD reduce their intake of high-cholesterol foods.

C) This answer is misleading because beef prices do not relate to the conclusion - there is no assumption that decline in the price of beef is related to the popularity of steak restaurants (the popularity could be due to consumer tastes or a rise in prices of other meats)

D) There is no assumption of causal relation here. The decline in beef consumption is actually irrelevant to the conclusion. The decline in the restaurant industry, on the other hand, is mentioned to strengthen the conclusion irrespective of the decline in beef consumption.

E) This answer works because it sheds light on the argument's assumption that those who eat more steak do not reduce their total intake of high-cholesterol foods by reducing their intake of OTHER high-cholesterol foods. If they reduce their cholesterol intake in their at-home diets and offset their increased consumption of steaek, then the conclusion does not follow.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 41 LR Section 1, #18

Postby Anaconda » Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:49 pm

Think I just misread the correct answer improperly - twice.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anervouslsater, applejacks888, beancounter15, Blueprint Mithun, BrainsyK, glockov, Instrumental, jdanz, monsterman, Pozzo, Snuffles1 and 23 guests