PrepTest 134, Section 1, Question 24
Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose(49 more words not shown)
The application of the principle(10 more words not shown)
- Afails to address(18 more words not shown)
- Bfails to address(18 more words not shown)
- Cimplicitly makes use(12 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(35 more words not shown)
- Econfuses a claim(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If an ingredient would upset most customers, tell them it's there. The labeling principle makes sense as a transparency rule: customers should be able to see that information before deciding what to eat.
The application says Crackly Crisps consumers wouldn't care about the genetically engineered ingredients, so the product doesn't need a label disclosing them. At first, that can sound like a reasonable fit. The concern that triggered the labeling rule isn't present.
What we’re looking for
But the question says the application is vulnerable to criticism, so we need to check the move carefully. Accept that most of these consumers wouldn't care. The task isn't to debate whether genetically engineered ingredients are safe or whether customers ought to be upset. It is to decide whether the rule actually licenses the conclusion that disclosure isn't needed. Let's test the descriptions of that reasoning.
Working the answers
- A
Both the principle and the application focus on consumers of the particular product. The argument doesn't take the preferences of Crackly Crisps consumers and treat them as representative of everyone who eats food. A describes a move from one population to a broader one that isn't made here.
- B
The principle responds to whether consumers would be upset, not to whether the ingredients have been scientifically proven safe. Customers could be upset about something for reasons other than danger. Showing the ingredients are safe doesn't settle whether the application follows the stated rule.
- C
There is no separate, incompatible value judgment doing the work. The application accepts a fact about consumers' lack of concern and tries to use the given labeling principle. The problem is how it uses that rule, rather than introducing an opposing moral standard.
- D
Buying a product despite knowing some ingredients doesn't establish a willingness to buy despite knowing all its ingredients. But the application never makes that argument. It addresses whether to disclose the genetically engineered ingredients, not a comparison between partial and complete ingredient knowledge or a prediction about purchases.
- ECorrect
The rule gives one condition that makes labeling necessary: most consumers would be upset to find the ingredient. It doesn't say that condition is the only possible reason to require a label. The application treats the absence of that condition as permission to omit the disclosure.
Perhaps a separate rule requires genetically engineered ingredients to be disclosed regardless of consumer concern. Then most customers could be indifferent while labeling was still required. The stated principle and that additional rule could both hold. This is the missing possibility: a reason sufficient to require an action isn't automatically the only reason the action could be required.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.