PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 21
Several people came down with an illness caused(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AMost people are(9 more words not shown)
- BThose made ill(14 more words not shown)
- CAll and only(23 more words not shown)
- DThe restaurant in(12 more words not shown)
- EAll and only(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if only one seafood dish was contaminated?
Everyone who became ill had eaten at the same restaurant on the same date. That is a useful connection, though by itself it wouldn't identify seafood as the source. The diners could have encountered something else at the restaurant.
Now we learn that most people who ate seafood there weren't even exposed to the bacteria. That might initially make the seafood explanation seem doubtful. But 'seafood' covers different dishes. Perhaps the oysters were contaminated while the crab and fish were fine. In that situation, many seafood diners could avoid the bacteria while a smaller group acquired it from the oysters.
What we’re looking for
That's the explanation I'd look for. The question asks us to reconcile the officials' confidence in contaminated seafood with the finding that most seafood diners weren't exposed. A contaminated subset could explain both. We don't need all the seafood on the menu to have caused the problem.
Working the answers
- A
Immunity explains why someone exposed to bacteria might not become ill. But the testing showed that most diners hadn't come in contact with the bacteria at all. Those are different findings. Even if immunity could explain a lack of symptoms, it wouldn't explain why most seafood diners avoided exposure. The precise wording keeps this tempting answer from resolving the discrepancy.
- B
A shared waiter supplies another connection among the sick diners, but it doesn't tell us that their seafood was contaminated or explain why most seafood diners weren't exposed. The waiter could have become ill from the same source, or there could be another connection. We shouldn't invent a particular transmission story to fill in what B leaves open.
- C
An allergy to a sauce ingredient doesn't explain how these people encountered the bacteria. The passage says the cases of illness were caused by bacteria; we cannot replace that fact with an allergic reaction. C links an allergy with eating contaminated seafood without showing why contamination affected only some of the restaurant's seafood diners.
- D
A health warning might make contamination at the restaurant less surprising. It doesn't identify the relevant food or separate the diners who encountered the bacteria from those who didn't. We need an explanation of the particular pattern, not just a general reason to distrust the restaurant's practices.
- ECorrect
All the people who ate one particular seafood dish became ill, and nobody else did. That is the dish-specific pattern we predicted. If the oysters were contaminated, people who ate other seafood could avoid exposure while every oyster eater became sick. The officials could reasonably remain confident in a seafood source despite the negative tests for most seafood diners.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.