PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 7
Any fruit that is infected is also rotten.(17 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- AIt is not(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is safe(8 more words not shown)
- CIt would have(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is not(8 more words not shown)
- EIt is safe(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We know the inspected fruit isn't infected. Do we know it's safe?
Infection guarantees that a fruit is rotten, but the passage doesn't say infection is the only way fruit can become rotten. So removing infection doesn't establish that the fruit isn't rotten. And even if we could establish that, we'd still need a connection to safety. Nothing yet tells us that being free of rot rules out every other danger.
What we’re looking for
For this question, we have to add a statement that makes the conclusion follow. Start with what we actually know about our fruit: it was inspected, and none of the inspected fruit is infected. A rule saying that uninfected fruit is safe would take us straight to the conclusion. We don't need to settle every possible question about rottenness if we can make that direct connection.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us that rotten fruit is unsafe. We don't know whether the inspected fruit is rotten, so we don't know whether the rule applies. More fundamentally, a rule identifying unsafe fruit doesn't establish that our fruit is safe.
- B
This would help if we knew the inspected fruit wasn't rotten. But all we know is that it isn't infected. It could still be rotten for some other reason. B leaves that missing step untouched, so we can't use its promise of safety for nonrotten fruit.
- C
This concerns infected fruit and what would have happened if it had been inspected. The actual inspected fruit in the argument is uninfected. C doesn't give us a safety rule for that fruit. Sharing the word “inspected” doesn't make an answer apply when it describes a different condition.
- D
The rule tells us what happens to infected fruit: it is unsafe. Our fruit isn't infected. That doesn't establish the opposite result for it. There could be other reasons fruit is unsafe, so D still allows the inspected fruit to be unsafe despite having no infection.
- ECorrect
Every inspected fruit is uninfected, and E makes every uninfected fruit safe to eat. Put those facts together: inspected fruit belongs to the uninfected group, and that entire group is safe. Therefore, every inspected fruit is safe.
Notice that we never needed to prove the fruit wasn't rotten. E connects the fact the argument establishes directly to the conclusion it wants. For purposes of this question, that added rule is enough.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.