PrepTest 118, Section 1, Question 7
An artificial hormone has recently been developed that(67 more words not shown)
The argument proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Aproposing an alternative(13 more words not shown)
- Braising considerations in(17 more words not shown)
- Cusing specific examples(25 more words not shown)
- Dintroducing a case(21 more words not shown)
- Equestioning the motivation(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More milk from the cows sounds useful. Could the hormone also cause problems? Maybe, but we haven't been told that it does. The proposed labels would let consumers know what artificial substances were used, without banning the substances themselves. That seems like a reasonable idea to consider.
The author objects. Is the concern that the labels would suggest a danger that hasn't been established? No. The objection is about carrying out the requirement: think how much information we would have to put on the carton if we listed every fertilizer and fungicide used along the way.
So the response is practical: this requirement would become an enormous labeling task. I might still ask whether giving consumers that information is worth the trouble. A cumbersome rule isn't automatically a bad rule. But the question asks us to describe the argument, not settle that debate.
What we’re looking for
I'd describe the method as rejecting a proposal because of what implementing it would involve. The author takes the proposed requirement seriously enough to follow it through, then invites us to find the result unreasonable.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't offer another way to inform consumers. A different labeling system, such as a color code, would be an alternative course of action. Here we get an objection to the proposed system without a replacement.
- BCorrect
The fertilizers and fungicides are the considerations the author raises. Applying the proposed requirement strictly would mean listing artificial substances used even to grow and preserve the cows' food. The author expects us to find that consequence unreasonable and reject the proposal. “Absurd consequences” may sound stronger than our prediction of an impractical labeling task, but it describes how the author presents that task. The answer needn't use the wording we expected.
- C
Even if we treat the fertilizers and fungicides as specific examples, where is the alternative proposal? The author never gives another method and shows it working better. C requires a comparison between two approaches that the passage doesn't make.
- D
The author stays with the milk-labeling proposal. An analogous case would be a separate situation used for comparison, such as what happened when a similar rule was applied to packages of another food. We get no such case. Imagining consequences for this proposal isn't introducing an analogy.
- E
The argument doesn't accuse lawmakers of having a hidden motive. It doesn't say they pretend to inform consumers while actually pursuing some other goal. The objection concerns the burden of listing the substances, regardless of why the lawmakers proposed it.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.