PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 21
Sodium nitrate is frequently added to sausages to(57 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(12 more words not shown)
- AThe argument makes(9 more words not shown)
- BThe argument does(9 more words not shown)
- CThe argument presumes,(20 more words not shown)
- DThe argument does(14 more words not shown)
- EThe argument does(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Never? I want more support before accepting that recommendation.
Let's accept what we're told: sodium nitrate makes the sausages pink, doesn't prevent spoilage, and can push the sodium level too high when used excessively. I still want to know how the author gets from those facts to abandoning it altogether. Is the color important to people buying the sausages? Is there another way to achieve it? People choosing a food might care about its appearance and taste as well as its health effects. Pointing to a possible health drawback doesn't, without more, settle every tradeoff.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'm looking for the unsupported jump to “never.” The argument needs more than a downside to justify its absolute recommendation. Let's see which answer identifies the problem most precisely.
Working the answers
- A
There is no sample described. A sampling objection would fit an argument that examined one or a few sausages and generalized from those cases. Here, the author gives general claims about the additive and excessive sodium, then makes a recommendation. A doesn't describe that reasoning.
- B
Removing an ingredient could have drawbacks worth considering, but the passage doesn't identify a risk created by removing this one. Losing the pink color might matter to consumers; it isn't by itself an established danger. The more direct flaw is whether the evidence warrants complete removal rather than a limited amount, which D addresses.
- C
The argument never asks the government to intervene or says people should be protected without their consent. It could be a recommendation manufacturers choose to follow. C adds an authority and a question of consent that aren't part of the argument.
- DCorrect
Why not use less? The evidence concerns excessive use and excessive sodium, while the conclusion rules out any use at all. A moderate amount might preserve the desired color without producing the problem the author identifies. We don't have to prove a particular amount is safe. The author simply hasn't shown why complete elimination is preferable to a more limited approach.
- E
The argument doesn't confuse a medical justification with an economic one. It offers a health concern as the basis for its recommendation and supplies no economic reasoning to mix up with that concern. Its mistake is the leap from excess being a problem to all use being unacceptable.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.