Top Law Schools

The Dietitian says that people should eat fresh plant foods to maintain cardiac health without lowering sodium consumption because the potassium in the plant foods helps to prevent sodium's malign effects. But he/she says people should eat fresh ones instead of canned ones to do this.

I don't understand why the Dietitian must be assuming that fresh plant foods have more potassium than do canned ones. Couldn't the dietitian be recommending fresh ones instead of canned ones because there's something else wrong with them (ex. canned plant foods have excess sodium) even though they have the same amount of potassium?? Why does it have to be that he/she is assuming that fresh ones have more potassium??

Anyone?

I see what you mean, but I think you've misidentified the conclusion - it's that we should eat fresh fruits and veggies, not canned ones. To get assumption family questions nailed tight, you've got to get to the core of the argument, not treat everything as equally relevant.

Then, the issue is that the conclusion is specifically based on the potassium in plant foods. So, if the conclusion is based on potassium, we need more potassium in the fresh food.

You're not trying to make the conclusion work, you're trying to make the argument work. What do we need to assume for this premise to support this conclusion.

Here's a fuller discussion.

I hope that helps.

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:I see what you mean, but I think you've misidentified the conclusion - it's that we should eat fresh fruits and veggies, not canned ones. To get assumption family questions nailed tight, you've got to get to the core of the argument, not treat everything as equally relevant.

Then, the issue is that the conclusion is specifically based on the potassium in plant foods. So, if the conclusion is based on potassium, we need more potassium in the fresh food.

You're not trying to make the conclusion work, you're trying to make the argument work. What do we need to assume for this premise to support this conclusion.

Here's a fuller discussion.

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the help!!!

Btw, when you say,

"You're not trying to make the conclusion work, you're trying to make the argument work. What do we need to assume for this premise to support this conclusion."

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that I SHOULD make the conclusion work? or...can you clarify that? I don't see what the difference is between making the conclusion or the argument work.

Here's an example of the difference:

People are mortal, therefore people are scared.

If you are trying to make the conclusion valid, then you could say "people have 2 legs, and anything with 2 legs is scared." But, that has nothing to do with the premise, so it doesn't make the argument valid. ("valid" could be read as something working)

But, if you're trying to make the argument valid, you need to connect the premise about mortality to being scared, so it'd be something like "anything that is mortal is scared."

That make sense?