PrepTest 139, Section 1, Question 9
Doctor: It would benefit public health if junk(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- ATaxing junk food(4 more words not shown)
- BIn many countries,(17 more words not shown)
- CIf junk food(24 more words not shown)
- DTaxing junk food(13 more words not shown)
- EJunk food should(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would the tax actually change what people buy?
Someone who wants potato chips might pay an extra dollar and buy them anyway. And even if a tax raises their price, would it make them much more expensive than healthful food? Taxed chips cost more than untaxed chips; that doesn't tell us how their price compares with spinach or fruit.
The doctor needs that comparison for the proposed explanation. The argument says that a large price difference would encourage healthier choices, which would reduce health problems. I can follow that proposed route while still questioning whether taxing junk food creates the price difference it needs.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked for the conclusion. What claim were we testing? That taxing junk food would benefit public health. The statements about harmful diets and incentives to change them are reasons for that claim. Understanding their supporting role lets us identify the conclusion even if we're not persuaded by the whole argument.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This is the doctor's opening claim and the point the remaining sentences support. Junk food contributes to health problems, and a price change is supposed to encourage people to change their diets. Those reasons lead toward the claimed health benefit from taxing junk food.
- B
This is one of the reasons. It identifies the health problem the proposed tax is meant to help address. The doctor doesn't stop at saying junk food contributes to illness; the doctor uses that fact to argue that taxing it would improve public health.
- C
This explains how a large difference in food prices could help: people would have an incentive to change their diets. It's part of the proposed route from a tax to better health. The conclusion is the overall claim that the tax would produce that benefit.
- D
Reduced junk-food consumption is an intermediate step in the doctor's reasoning. It explains how the tax is supposed to improve health, but it leaves out the final benefit the doctor claims. We want the supported point, not just a step along the way to it.
- E
Predicting a health benefit isn't the same as saying the tax should be imposed. There could be other considerations in deciding what policy to adopt. The doctor claims what would happen if junk food were taxed, without stating E's broader rule that a public-health benefit justifies the tax.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.