PrepTest 128, Section 3, Question 6
Melchior: Some studies have linked infants' consumption of(33 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Melchior's argument(10 more words not shown)
- Adefends a certain(20 more words not shown)
- Bdraws a conclusion(13 more words not shown)
- Cinappropriately introduces normative(10 more words not shown)
- Ddistorts an argument(13 more words not shown)
- Econfuses an absence(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The studies found a link between cow's milk formula and later diabetes. That doesn't yet establish that the formula causes diabetes. Perhaps another difference between the groups explains the association. Still, a possible health risk isn't a reason in favor of feeding infants this formula, so the recommendation makes me ask: what is the benefit?
Melchior supplies one. Cow's milk provides several nutrients important to infants' development. That's a real consideration, but does getting those nutrients require using cow's milk formula?
What if breast milk or another feeding option supplies those same nutrients without the possible downside? We haven't been told whether it does. That's the comparison I'd want before accepting the recommendation. Showing that an option has a benefit doesn't show that we should choose it when another option might offer the same benefit with fewer concerns.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that gap: Melchior defends the formula by pointing to its nutrients without considering whether an alternative can supply them.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The practice is feeding infants cow's milk formula; the benefit is providing important nutrients. Melchior doesn't consider whether another practice could provide those nutrients too. That matters because the studies have raised a possible downside. If another option offers the benefit without that concern, the nutrient argument alone doesn't justify choosing this formula.
- B
The conclusion recommends a feeding practice, while the supporting claim describes nutrients in cow's milk. Those are different claims. Melchior doesn't simply assume the recommendation and then repeat it as the conclusion.
- C
This gets both roles wrong. A normative claim concerns what should be done, and the conclusion here is exactly that sort of recommendation: parents should feed infants the formula. The nutrient claim supporting it is factual. We aren't moving from a value judgment to an entirely factual conclusion.
- D
Melchior acknowledges the studies' finding and proceeds to recommend the formula. There is no distorted version of an opposing argument that Melchior then attacks. We shouldn't substitute an argumentative move that never occurs for the missing comparison that does.
- E
Melchior doesn't say that a lack of evidence for some claim proves the claim false. The recommendation rests on affirmative evidence about nutrients. The problem is what that evidence leaves unresolved about alternatives.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.