Q10 - The labeling of otherwise

[justindebouvier7]

This is a fairly straight forward problem. It is asking us to find a principle that, when added, will justify the conclusion.

Premise: Consumers attempting to lose-weight will equate "sugar- free" with "low in calories."
Premise: Manufacturers are aware that consumers are misled.
Conclusion: Labeling of high calorie foods as "sugar-free" based on all sugar by artificial sweeteners should be prohibited by law.

The conclusion is strong by stating that it SHOULD be prohibited so we should look for an answer choice that states that we should, indeed, do that. Unfortunately, in this particular problem, all answer choices mention what should be done.

A: This issue with A is that it states that the labels are literally incorrect when in fact they are literally correct. They do not contain sugar which does in fact make them "sugar-free." Therefore, this answer choice can be eliminated fairly quickly.
B: Same as A.
C: This starts out fine by suggesting that the labeling is literally correct but goes awry by mentioning an expert. The stimulus doesn't mention that an expert will impact the decision making process for buying foods. Eliminate.
D: This starts of good by saying that the labeling is literally correct. Additionally, this answer choice mentions that manufacturers intentionally misrepresent the products which result in people potentially being harmed.
E: Nowhere in the stimulus does it suggest that only two possible interpretations are available.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not bad justindebouvier7! Compare your explanation to some of my own additional thoughts. And let me know what you think!

Answer choice (D) bridges the gap in that it provides a relationship between the trigger (evidence) and the outcome (conclusion). It's important to note that the evidence establishes that the product labels are literally correct, but yet will be predictably misinterpreted. It's also really important that the principle justifies the conclusion that the product labels in question should be prohibited by law.

Incorrect Answers
(A) and (B) are out of scope. Right on justindebouvier7, we know the labels are literally correct.
(C) is out of scope, nice justindebouvier7!
(E) is out of scope. This principle cannot be applied to the stimulus since the two interpretations are not both equally correct.

[WaltGrace1983]

What exactly is the beginning of (E) saying, the part about the "one of two equally accurate interpretations?" I think I eliminated this because the argument is talking about the "many consumers that need to lose weight" rather than consumers as a whole and thus we don't know if buyers in general do or don't "tend to" misinterpret the label.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting Waltgrace1983!

Great observation that the principle in (E) would only be triggered if "buyers tend to interpret the label" a particular way. And if "tend to" means "most do" then you're right that we have no way of knowing if that occurred, since the stimulus only tells us about a subgroup of buyers.

However, the real meaning of 'tends to' is unclear - I think people use it to mean 'most' quite often, but it could also imply a plurality (where something happens more than any other event, but not more than 50% of the time), and it can even be used to describe a mere pattern or habit without a strict numerical boundary ("I tend to go to the gym on Mondays" may simply mean that I have a tendency toward gym-Mondays.) In that sense it may simply mean 'I lean towards', and might reasonably be understood to mean "some" rather than "most".

Because this language is used so imprecisely, it seems unlikely that the LSAT would have an answer choice hinge directly on such a distinction.

So, let's turn to your original question. If a label were literally correct, but only on one of two equally accurate interpretations, that means that the label could legitimately/reasonaably be read and understood to mean two different things. For instance, if a smallish bag of cookies a label that says ONLY 50 CALORIES!, one could reasonably interpret this to mean that the bag of cookies contains a total of 50 calories. It would also be reasonable to interpret the label to mean that *each cookie* was 50 calories.

Obviously, only one of those interpretations could actually be correct for that particuar bag of cookies, but they are both literally correct interpretations of the label.

That does not apply here, since there's only one legitimate/accurate interpretation of 'sugar-free' discussed in the stimulus.

Does that help clear up (E) a bit?