> Can't seem to find the reason for why choice A is correct but B is incorrect.
>
> Please #help
The stimulus starts by asking the question essentially asking
_'would it be okay if the government got rid of all the regulations regarding toxic substances in food'_
This is our sufficient condition of the entire argument. Immediately after the question we see _Only if_, introducing our necessary condition, which states 'only if we can _literally_ 100% eliminate toxic substances in food' but the author continues essentially elaborating.
He takes the word 'toxic' literally by saying technically some foods naturally have toxic substances but its so little its no problem. Furthermore, he points out the fact that detection of substances are ultimately limited by human technology and therefore we can't even know if we literally have zero toxic substances on food.
All of this is basically a big fat way of denying the necessary condition, pointing out _only if_ we achieve these obviously practically impossible conditions can we have the sufficient. Deny the necessary, you deny the sufficient
_'would it be okay if the government got rid of all the regulations regarding toxic substances in food'_
which is (A) basically saying the government shouldn't rid their regulations and continue to regulate what is acceptable.
(B) is incorrect because the author is basically saying zero toxic is impossible. As he takes the idea of zero literally. Absolute zero in literally every single thing considered food.
Hi K.M., this argument is tricky because there is no "since X, so therefore Y" structure. The way I went about looking for the conclusion was to contrapose the "only if" statement. In other words, I broke the argument down this way:
Would it be right for the government to do "X"?
Only if "Y"
However, evidence of "NOT Y"
Furthermore, more evidence of "NOT Y"
So when you push the contrapositive back, it leads to the conclusion that it is not right for the government to do "X. At this point, you can fill in what X is. This leads to the conclusion that it is not right for the government to abandon efforts to determine at what levels to allow toxic substances.
Hope this helped!
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
6 comments
Thank you for this explanation. Much appreciated!
> @kedarmoghe154 said:
> Can't seem to find the reason for why choice A is correct but B is incorrect.
>
> Please #help
The stimulus starts by asking the question essentially asking
_'would it be okay if the government got rid of all the regulations regarding toxic substances in food'_
This is our sufficient condition of the entire argument. Immediately after the question we see _Only if_, introducing our necessary condition, which states 'only if we can _literally_ 100% eliminate toxic substances in food' but the author continues essentially elaborating.
He takes the word 'toxic' literally by saying technically some foods naturally have toxic substances but its so little its no problem. Furthermore, he points out the fact that detection of substances are ultimately limited by human technology and therefore we can't even know if we literally have zero toxic substances on food.
All of this is basically a big fat way of denying the necessary condition, pointing out _only if_ we achieve these obviously practically impossible conditions can we have the sufficient. Deny the necessary, you deny the sufficient
_'would it be okay if the government got rid of all the regulations regarding toxic substances in food'_
which is (A) basically saying the government shouldn't rid their regulations and continue to regulate what is acceptable.
(B) is incorrect because the author is basically saying zero toxic is impossible. As he takes the idea of zero literally. Absolute zero in literally every single thing considered food.
Can't seem to find the reason for why choice A is correct but B is incorrect.
Please #help
Now I see how I am suppose to use that lesson, and I must go back to it. Thank you
Wow thanks so much for the swift reply! That helped a lot.
:)
Hi K.M., this argument is tricky because there is no "since X, so therefore Y" structure. The way I went about looking for the conclusion was to contrapose the "only if" statement. In other words, I broke the argument down this way:
Would it be right for the government to do "X"?
Only if "Y"
However, evidence of "NOT Y"
Furthermore, more evidence of "NOT Y"
So when you push the contrapositive back, it leads to the conclusion that it is not right for the government to do "X. At this point, you can fill in what X is. This leads to the conclusion that it is not right for the government to abandon efforts to determine at what levels to allow toxic substances.
Hope this helped!