LR question from PT 53

Dixi
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:50 pm

LR question from PT 53

Postby Dixi » Mon May 16, 2011 10:11 am

So I’m having trouble with a LR question that appeared in Section 1, PT 53:

10. Public Health experts have waged a long-standing educational campaign to get people to eat more vegetables, which are known to help prevent cancer. Unfortunately, the campaign has had little impact on people’s diets. The reason is probably that many people simply dislike the taste of most vegetables. Thus, the campaign would probably be more effective if it included information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

D. People who dislike the taste of most vegetables would eat many more vegetables if they knew how to make them more appetizing.

E. The only way to make the campaign to get people to eat more vegetables more effective would be to ensure that anyone who at present dislikes the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appetizing.


I quickly excluded A, B and C, and chose between D and E. Both of them make sense, and I don’t understand why D is better than E. Can someone please explain?

Thanks!

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: LR question from PT 53

Postby Icculus » Mon May 16, 2011 10:20 am

The key thing with E is the idea of "the only way", it is impossible to assume that given the question there is only one way to improve the campaign. Answer E is far too extreme.

Edit: Also, the phrase "would probably be more effective" indicates that there is no guarantee this would work, and E is a guarantee.

Dixi
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: LR question from PT 53

Postby Dixi » Mon May 16, 2011 10:34 am

mjcaccio wrote:The key thing with E is the idea of "the only way", it is impossible to assume that given the question there is only one way to improve the campaign. Answer E is far too extreme.

Edit: Also, the phrase "would probably be more effective" indicates that there is no guarantee this would work, and E is a guarantee.




But the question says "if true", which means that we have to assume that whatever the answer choices state is true. If "The ONLY way" to make the campaign more effective is to ensure that anyone who at present dislikes the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appetizing (which we have to assume is true), then shouldn't this make E even more compelling? E might be extreme, but we cannot question the statement itself - or can we?

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: LR question from PT 53

Postby Icculus » Mon May 16, 2011 10:43 am

Also, the question stem states that most people dislike the taste of most vegetables, not certain people dislike the taste of certain vegetables. So E does not address the issue presented in the question stem. D addresses the idea of most people and most vegetables (most being > 50%) rather than just certain people and certain vegetables.

Edit: E also leaves open the possibility that people who dislike certain vegetables could be eating plenty of other vegetables. E only addresses making people like vegetables they may dislike, not whether these people would eat MORE vegetables overall.

And you are correct, we cannot question the validity of the statement. I went too fast with my first explanation. really the focus is on eating many more vegetables, not just certain vegetables.

User avatar
510Chicken
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: LR question from PT 53

Postby 510Chicken » Mon May 16, 2011 11:21 am

I think a better way to approach the answer here is to compare the kind of conditionals they set up.

Specifically, (E) says that making vegetables appetizing to those who dislike them is necessary ("the only way") for people to eat more. That doesn't have to mean that such an approach would be effective, however, just that nothing else would work.

(D), on the other hand, says that making vegetables more appetizing is sufficient ("if... would") to get people to eat more of them.

If people could cook 'em tasty, then people who dislike veggies (and who are probably the reason consumption isn't up) would eat more. This strengthens the argument best because it allows the final conclusion to be drawn perfectly.

Dixi
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: LR question from PT 53

Postby Dixi » Mon May 16, 2011 11:41 am

Thanks!

I think I’m starting to understand. The key to this question I guess is (as you pointed out) the word “effective”. E says that teaching people to make the veggies tasty is the only way to make the campaign more effective, but doesn’t say that such a strategy for certain will be effective. D offers more certainty in that it guarantees that the strategy will work out and that it will be effective (“would eat many more vegetables”) and is thus rephrasing the conclusion.







510Chicken wrote:I think a better way to approach the answer here is to compare the kind of conditionals they set up.

Specifically, (E) says that making vegetables appetizing to those who dislike them is necessary ("the only way") for people to eat more. That doesn't have to mean that such an approach would be effective, however, just that nothing else would work.

(D), on the other hand, says that making vegetables more appetizing is sufficient ("if... would") to get people to eat more of them.

If people could cook 'em tasty, then people who dislike veggies (and who are probably the reason consumption isn't up) would eat more. This strengthens the argument best because it allows the final conclusion to be drawn perfectly.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, aw_1234, BEng,MBA,FRM,JD(?), BlackWillHunting, LSRAT, Pozzo, SolRs and 11 guests