Top Law Schools

cafeteria patron...

the answer is (A) -- but i honestly cannot comprehend what it means. i just read a pretty big manhattan explaination and still am lost

so, the apples the cafeteria sells are not washed AFTER harvest but BEFORE reaching the cafeteria? so they wash the apples before it gets to the cafeteria? then how would it be selling pesticide covered fruit?

Why is this so confusing for me? the "BUT" part screws me up pretty badly.

This is a necessary assumption question, so our job is to find the answer choice that has to be true for the argument to work. If we reverse the right answer choice, the argument should fall apart.

The argument says:

a) Most fruit has pesticides on it.
b) The pesticides stay on the fruit until the fruit is washed.
c) The cafeteria doesn't wash its apples.

Conclusion: The cafeteria sells fruit with pesticides on it.

Any holes in this argument? There are several, but one that jumps out is this -- who says that the fruit isn't washed before it gets to the cafeteria?

Maybe the company that picks the apples washes them.

If so, the pesticides would be gone, and the conclusion -- that the cafeteria sells fruit with pesticides on it -- wouldn't be supported.

For the conclusion to work, we have to assume that the fruit isn't washed before it gets to the cafeteria.

I can see where the language in a) could be confusing. It's just telling you the time frame -- after the apples are harvested but before they get to the cafeteria. You can just think of it as "before the apples get to the cafeteria."

<Here's an explanation of why they need to say that the time frame is after harvesting. Please ignore if it makes things more confusing.

The LSAT writers can't make choice a) something like "The fruit isn't washed before the apples get to the cafeteria." The argument doesn't require that the fruit is never washed. The fruit can be washed a hundred times while it's still growing. It can be washed by the rain. More pesticides could be sprayed on it after the last rain, and the fruit would still be covered in pesticides when it got to the cafeteria.

The argument needs to assume that the fruit isn't washed after it's harvested, though. Washing after harvest would remove the pesticides, and then the conclusion that the cafeteria sells fruit with pesticides wouldn't be supported.>

Does this make sense? Does it help? Please ask further questions if you have any!

Post removed.

Laura,

Thanks a lot. this helped.

I feel like the argument itself isn't so complicated. but the WORDING of answer choice (A) just bothers me so much. when you say what it means like you did in your post, it becomes clear what the argument wants. thanks