PrepTest 149, Section 3, Question 1
Advertisement: Most nutritionists recommend eating fish twice a(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AEating more than(25 more words not shown)
- BTilapia are invasive(13 more words not shown)
- CTilapia fillets contain(16 more words not shown)
- DMost people who(17 more words not shown)
- EPeople who rarely(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Fish without the fishy taste sounds like a useful workaround. But does tilapia deliver what people wanted from eating fish?
The advertisement gives us one advantage: tilapia lacks the strong taste that puts some people off. That doesn't settle whether it's a perfect choice. Perhaps someone dislikes its texture or some other aspect of its taste. More importantly, perhaps it doesn't provide the nutritional benefit behind the recommendation. I might initially wonder about protein, but the advertisement hasn't actually told us which benefit matters.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd look for a problem with this proposed substitute. We can accept that it isn't strongly fishy while questioning whether it gives these customers the benefit they're trying to obtain.
Working the answers
- A
This warns about eating more than the recommended amount. The advertisement isn't telling people to exceed that amount; it proposes tilapia as their fish choice. A problem with overconsumption doesn't establish a problem with using tilapia for the recommended servings.
- B
Crowding out native fish is an environmental concern, but the argument is about getting the benefits of eating fish without the unwanted taste. B doesn't establish that tilapia fails on either of those points. We also shouldn't assume that eating tilapia necessarily helps the ecosystem; that would require more information about where it comes from and how consumption affects the population.
- CCorrect
This identifies the main benefit the substitute lacks in sufficient quantity: beneficial fish oils. If tilapia contains little of the oils that principally motivate the nutritionists' advice, avoiding the fishy taste comes with a limitation the advertisement ignores. C doesn't say tilapia has no nutritional value or no oil at all. It weakens the claim that tilapia is a perfect way to obtain the recommended benefit while avoiding the taste.
- D
The fact that people who dislike fish eat too little of it explains why the advertisement has an audience. It doesn't tell us the proposed workaround fails. These are exactly the people who might want a different-tasting option if it supplies the benefits they want.
- E
This reinforces the obstacle the advertisement tries to remove: a strong fishy taste discourages some people. But we're told tilapia lacks that strong taste. E doesn't identify another objection to tilapia or show that it lacks the relevant benefit.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.